This ISN`T a movie. It was real flesh and blood people who had their hearts stomped on and their lives destroyed.
WTH, it takes compassion and understanding to attempt to comprehend the damage wrought.
I think that you don`t want to face your own culpability, there for you must place all of this in the relm of story and movies made up for others profit and entertainment.
I wasn't making and I don't believe I have made a comparison between the ministry of the Apostle Paul and the other Paul - V. Paul W. that is. I do believe I made a valid comparison perhaps between the ministry of Martin Luther and VPW, especially where I made the comment when Martin Luther said unto Philipp Melanchthon, "Philipp go and sin, and sin boldly!" I heard that VPW read a lot of Martin Luther's works. Maybe he thought the advice that Luther had given to Melanchthon would be good enough for him as well?...
.
Now there's something we can agree upon. "Sin boldly" was probably vic's motto.
...All we hear about and get shoved down our throats by all the "T-bones" (bonehead preachers) out there in the world is how there IS this GREAT BIG SIN you can commit (but in most cases they are often referring to someone they really don't like) that can separate you from God. They even use the sins of VPW as an example. They love to pick and choose and quote verse upon verse of scripture about drunkeness, fornication, adultry, etc., etc., etc. and how all those who commit such deeds (and to put it in the words of Jesus himself so they can appear authentic and genuine to everyone) SHALL NOT inherit the kingdom of God!...
.
You know…you bring up a good point…Paul recommended excommunication of the sexually immoral believer in I Corinthians 5 out of concern for the spiritual wellbeing of the church - and of that individual believer too! If you follow up on this incident in II Corinthians – you'll find the sexually immoral person did repent and Paul told the church to accept him back into the fold with open arms.…
Now imagine – instead of reproving someone like that – we promote them to be the head of a religious organization…and with a personal mission statement like "sin boldly" I can just imagine the "great example" he'd set for followers under his "teaching ministry." Guess he could have ended his porn video sessions with "go and do thou likewise."
I wasn't making and I don't believe I have made a comparison between the ministry of the Apostle Paul and the other Paul - V. Paul W. that is. I do believe I made a valid comparison perhaps between the ministry of Martin Luther and VPW, especially where I made the comment when Martin Luther said unto Philipp Melanchthon, "Philipp go and sin, and sin boldly!" I heard that VPW read a lot of Martin Luther's works. Maybe he thought the advice that Luther had given to Melanchthon would be good enough for him as well?...
Once again, I think it's great we at least see eye to eye on vp's character…Perhaps his idea of the four 15s was different than most folks:
· Drink 15 ounces of Drambui before breakfast
· Watch 15 minute clip of favorite porn video
· Take 15 minutes to review new Corps applicants, scan for babes
All day I've been hoping you didn't fire back by calling WhatTheHey "Bonehead" or something similar. I didn't want some good discussion buried beneath pages of pointless name calling and recriminations.
Isn't namecalling a bit out of step with stated website policy?
I was glad that yesterday I limited myself to simply implying cussing at a stupid movie and a heartless point.
But as long as people insist on keeping these TWI horror stories fresh and alive in their mind and the mind of others today, instead of really going back - one can't really see what a crappy plot those stories are telling - much like "The Exorcist" story did.
I was going to elaborate further on a point I was making but then ran out of time.
The scariest movie of all time (The Exorcist) has returned - in a version you've never seen. Warner Home Video put out a “25th Anniversary Special Edition” for William Friedkin’s The Exorcist on DVD and laserdisc. The expanded 75-minute featurette is a new documentary produced by the BBC specifically for the film's 25th anniversary edition, featuring more than 11 minutes of never-before-seen footage. Deleted scenes—and some new digital effects—were inserted into the re-release subtitled "The Version You've Never Seen" in 2000. Even though "The Exorcist" has been classified as a horror flick, it is supposedly based on a true story. It is based on a 1949 exorcism Blatty heard about while he was a student in the class of 1950 at Georgetown University, a Jesuit and Catholic school.
According to Rev. Father William O'Malley (who played Father Joseph Dyer in the film), the events depicted in the film are approximately 80% true. He claims the big discrepancies between the movie and case it was inspired by were: it was a boy who was possessed, not a girl; the possession did not occur in Georgetown, but just outside DC in Cottage City, MD. In this case, the boy's head did not rotate 180 degrees, though he claims that nearly everything else in the movie actually occurred. The name of the boy who was subject of the "true" exorcism that inspired Blatty's novel was Ronald Hunkeler. After he was "cured" he went on to attend Gonzaga College High School in Washington, DC, graduating in 1954. He was later a scientist with NASA. He refuses all interviews regarding his exorcism. At last account, he was rumored to be living in Laurel, MD. (From: Wikipedia) So apparently there is some credibility even in this horror flick.
But the truth of the matter is we've already seen it all - when people battle with demons. Holy water and green puke fly from every imaginable angle as this battle of good and evil continues to rage on and on. But in the end, who is the real winner? Just what are the two "biggest demons"people struggle with the most? Money and Sex. The reason we continue to struggle with these demons is because of the emotional attatchments we have to them. Now if you want to emotionaly incite someone, then these two demons are the best ones out there.
In Acts 19 we read how Demetrius a silversmith who made shrines for the goddess Diana emotionally incited a mob of people against the apostle Paul. How was he able to accomplish that? He first got them emotionally riled up by getting to "their pocketbook" - by telling the mob their craft was in danger. Here he first riles people with money. Then he goes on to mention the Goddess Diana ... how she would be despised and her magnifiicence be destroyed ... (and note this) whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. (Acts 19:27) Even though we don't bow down and worship a goddess Diana, we still are worshipping what that goddess represents.
There are references to Diana in common literature. For example, in Shakespeare's play, Romeo and Juliet, many references are made to her. Rosaline, a beautiful woman who has sworn to chastity, is said to have "Dian's wit". Later on in the play, Romeo says, "It is the East, and Juliet is the sun. Arise fair sun, and kill the envious moon." He is saying that Juliet is better than Diana and Rosaline for not swearing chastity. Diana is also a character in the 1876 Leo Delibe ballet 'Sylvia'. The plot deals with Sylvia, one of Diana's nymphs and sworn to chastity and Diana's assault on Sylvia's affections for the shepherd Amyntas. (Excerpt from: Wikipedia)
What the goddess Diana represents is chastity - chastity of course referring to the sexual behavior of a man or woman acceptable to the ethic norms and guidelines of a particular culture, civilization or religion. For example, within the scope of Christian ethic, Roman Catholics view sex within marriage as chaste, but prohibit the use of artificial contraception as an offense against chastity, seeing contraception as contrary to God's will and design of human sexuality. Many Anglican churches allow for artificial contraception, seeing the restriction of family size as possibly not contrary to God's will. A stricter view is held by the Shakers, who prohibit marriage (and sexual intercourse under any circumstances) as a violation of chastity.
Getting people emotionally riled up over the gods of money and sex (even chase sex) is nothing new. Demetrius himself did it back there in Acts 19. What was the response by the majority of the people? The response is still the same today - "And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians." These two gods - money and sex still have a very powerful hold on people and God forbid people learn to despise these two gods?
According to Rev. Father William O'Malley (who played Father Joseph Dyer in the film), the events depicted in the film are approximately 80% true. He claims the big discrepancies between the movie and case it was inspired by were: it was a boy who was possessed, not a girl; the possession did not occur in Georgetown, but just outside DC in Cottage City, MD. In this case, the boy's head did not rotate 180 degrees, though he claims that nearly everything else in the movie actually occurred.
SNIP---Getting people emotionally riled up over the gods of money and sex (even chase sex) is nothing new. Demetrius himself did it back there in Acts 19. What was the response by the majority of the people? The response is still the same today - "And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians." These two gods - money and sex still have a very powerful hold on people and God forbid people learn to despise these two gods?
The whole world's fightin' about the same thing.Edited by waysider
I shall also shorten the original post. Feel free to jump back using the arrow or scroll up
for the original post in its entirety-I kept what was germane to my reply.]
(snip)
Even though "The Exorcist" has been classified as a horror flick, it is supposedly based on a true story. It is based on a 1949 exorcism Blatty heard about while he was a student in the class of 1950 at Georgetown University, a Jesuit and Catholic school.
According to Rev. Father William O'Malley (who played Father Joseph Dyer in the film), the events depicted in the film are approximately 80% true. He claims the big discrepancies between the movie and case it was inspired by were: it was a boy who was possessed, not a girl; the possession did not occur in Georgetown, but just outside DC in Cottage City, MD. In this case, the boy's head did not rotate 180 degrees, though he claims that nearly everything else in the movie actually occurred. The name of the boy who was subject of the "true" exorcism that inspired Blatty's novel was Ronald Hunkeler. After he was "cured" he went on to attend Gonzaga College High School in Washington, DC, graduating in 1954. He was later a scientist with NASA. He refuses all interviews regarding his exorcism. At last account, he was rumored to be living in Laurel, MD. (From: Wikipedia) So apparently there is some credibility even in this horror flick.
[Thank you for citing your source-the Wikipedia article.
Whether or not there is "some credibility" in this movie (and its book) is dependent upon the
credibility of the source material, the writer, and whoever's "vetting it", in this case,
William O'Malley.
I'm not convinced-I've read contrary material through the years.]
(snip)
Just what are the two "biggest demons"people struggle with the most? Money and Sex. The reason we continue to struggle with these demons is because of the emotional attatchments we have to them. Now if you want to emotionaly incite someone, then these two demons are the best ones out there.
[i can see one saying some demons are connected with lust for money or lust for sex, but I
question muddying the discussion by calling either a "demon" itself.
"Love of money is the root of all evil."-I Timothy 6:10.]
(snip)
In Acts 19 we read how Demetrius a silversmith who made shrines for the goddess Diana emotionally incited a mob of people against the apostle Paul. How was he able to accomplish that? He first got them emotionally riled up by getting to "their pocketbook" - by telling the mob their craft was in danger. Here he first riles people with money.
[so what?]
Then he goes on to mention the Goddess Diana ... how she would be despised and her magnifiicence be destroyed ... (and note this) whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. (Acts 19:27) Even though we don't bow down and worship a goddess Diana, we still are worshipping what that goddess represents.
No we don't.
She represented the income for those people, and a nationalistic pride, first and second.
Their jobs were based on making her stuff, and their identification with their city was
based on her temple, one of the 7 Wonders of the ancient world.
If you wandered around geography and history, you'd find what she represented was
often CONTRADICTORY with what she represented in ANOTHER place and time.]
There are references to Diana in common literature. For example, in Shakespeare's play, Romeo and Juliet, many references are made to her. Rosaline, a beautiful woman who has sworn to chastity, is said to have "Dian's wit". Later on in the play, Romeo says, "It is the East, and Juliet is the sun. Arise fair sun, and kill the envious moon." He is saying that Juliet is better than Diana and Rosaline for not swearing chastity. Diana is also a character in the 1876 Leo Delibe ballet 'Sylvia'. The plot deals with Sylvia, one of Diana's nymphs and sworn to chastity and Diana's assault on Sylvia's affections for the shepherd Amyntas. (Excerpt from: Wikipedia)
[in all of history, you found 2 references, one from Shakespeare, and one from a ballet.
THIS is how you support "we worship her"? Both references are over a century old.
We talk a lot more about, say, Franz Ferdinand than we do Diana of Ephesus,
and we don't worship HIM, either.]
What the goddess Diana represents is chastity -
[Not to the Ephesians-there she was a MOTHER GODDESS. Flip back and review the pictures
of her....
What was the purpose in dragging us into irrelevant passages of history,
to claim we worship a mythological figure?
Was it part of WTH's regular efforts to excuse vpw of wrongdoing, and
say it's ok to rape and steal, but wrong to expose raping and stealing?
Let's see.]
..chastity of course referring to the sexual behavior of a man or woman acceptable to the ethic norms and guidelines of a particular culture, civilization or religion. For example, within the scope of Christian ethic, Roman Catholics view sex within marriage as chaste, but prohibit the use of artificial contraception as an offense against chastity, seeing contraception as contrary to God's will and design of human sexuality. Many Anglican churches allow for artificial contraception, seeing the restriction of family size as possibly not contrary to God's will. A stricter view is held by the Shakers, who prohibit marriage (and sexual intercourse under any circumstances) as a violation of chastity.
[Then there's the Bible. In the Old Testament, as well as the new, the message on sex is
pretty clear. If you're going to have sex, have it with your ONE spouse, and nobody else.
Not married? Don't have sex.
If you need citations, I can link the Schoenheit article-he did a rather thorough job
documenting this....
The Bible's position is not a "CULTURAL" one, nor is it SUBJECTIVE-
not for people who claim they hold the Bible as sacred and as their STANDARD.]
Getting people emotionally riled up over the gods of money and sex (even chase sex) is nothing new.
[God getting riled over it, and God's people riled over it-is nothing new, either.
I Samuel 1-4 shows people and God Almighty offended that leaders of God's people-
who claimed to stand for God to the people- were stealing the money and using
God's people for sex. God said Hophni and Phinehas died for it, and their connections
didn't count for anything-they were the sons of Eli, a Judge.
Of course, people trying to silence the correct moral outrage against such
abusers, manipulators, evil men, THAT's nothing new EITHER.]
Demetrius himself did it back there in Acts 19. What was the response by the majority of the people? The response is still the same today - "And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians." These two gods - money and sex still have a very powerful hold on people and God forbid people learn to despise these two gods?
All sin still comes down to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.
(I John 2:16)
Taking money or sex out of its proper place-
like stealing money from God's people, or using a coersive method to get them to have
Thanks for clarifying your intentions with the explanations. When I make biblical references I'm seeking to apply the scripture to more current events that fit the overall topic of this website. I freely ask for everyones patience with that and hope that everyone can consider the underlying principles if they're not with me in regards to reasoning out of the scripture.
I have a hard time comparing the movie to TWI because for me the movie's fiction, but TWI is fact.
At one point, people called Barnabus Jupiter, and they called Paul Mercury. They did not stand for it and before long they were as hated as they had been so recently liked. Acts 14:11-19
Not too long ago I was with a small splinter group that called one man "The Word in the Flesh"
In both cases people made men idols. In one case was it stopped. Paul and Barnabus stopped it because the fear of the Lord made them wise.
Paul shared his weakness with eveyone and desired everyone to know that the same Lord would judge him and them, and he never tried to raise himself over that in people's eyes. Neither did he let people put him on a pedastal.
THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN
p.s. People can get riled when you touch their idols no matter which ones they happen to be at the time.
I shall also shorten the original post. Feel free to jump back using the arrow or scroll up for the original post in its entirety-I kept what was germane to my reply.
All sin still comes down to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.
(I John 2:16)
WTH in boldface, as usual.
So? The very next verse says (v.17), And the world passeth away and the lust thereof;
I am not sure why you left that part out because the Word of God makes it vividly clear that lust [sin] is not as permanent as some people want to make it.
Taking money or sex out of its proper place- like stealing money from God's people, or using a coersive method to get them to have sex with you- is sin, and falls under those categories, too.
Sin still has a powerful hold on people.
Sorry but I disagree with you as does the Word of God. What really has a powerful hold on people is the guilt of sin,not sin itself.
But there are plenty of false pastors and teachers in the world reinforcing the guilt of sin on others because they really believe that is the way to escape it or to overcome it. The problem is, many people believe it is - but I've already covered that in a previous post. (The Word of God also covers that issue - and far better than I.) Go back and re-read it if you missed it.
God forbid His people learn to accept sin!
But God's people always accept sin - when they are made to feel guilty for it. To make matters worse, there are plenty of ignorant religious folk around to make people feel guilty over their sin - not including their own ignorance about it. It is written, "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law." (II Corinthians 15:56) There was an individual who came and he broke the sting and the strength of sin for us. His name was Jesus Christ.
Later on the apostle Paul said that he was what he was by the grace of God, and that his grace [God's grace] was NOT bestowed upon him in vain. (II Corinthians 15:10)
Religion keeps telling you all you have to do to overcome sin is just throw "Holy Water" on all the green pukey stuff in your life - and then everything will magically be ok. But all it becomes is a real scary "The Exorcist" movie whenever we attempt to get rid of all that pukey stuff. We've got to make sure that "God is in the House."
But all one ends up with is - is an ugly mix of Holy water and green puke! Nick Cave says (sings) it well ...
hi wth!.........the question to which i am referring is the one you asked in the first paragraph of your post on this thread on january 31, 2008 at 2:22 pm..........
"I often wonder how VPW would answer all these accusations that are brought against him if he were still alive today. Could he follow suit with the likes of the apostle Paul as recorded there in Acts 24? Acts 24 tells us how Tertullus had accused Paul before the governor, accussed him of profaning the temple and being a mover of sediton among the Jews. The apostle Paul was accused of many things which the Jews assented saying those things he were accused of were true. Of course, the apostle Paul had the chance in that record to answer for himself to the accusations that were brought against him, but VPW can not do that as VPW is dead."
now, if i may repeat:
"the basic premise of wth's question presumes that there is a valid comparison to be made between the ministry of the apostle paul and that of vic wierwille, founder of twi.............my question regarding this massive presumption is.............do you, wth, truly give equal weight "before god" to the ministry of the apostle paul and the "ministry" of vic wierwille??..........are you presuming that paul the apostle and vic were called by the same god for the same reasons??............are you presuming both paul the apostle and vic received revelation from the same god concerning the bible??.............do you believe paul the apostle and vic were both carrying on "their ministry" with genuine authority and direction from god and his son, jesus christ?............your answers to these questions will determine whether any valid comparison between the apostle paul and vic wierwille can actually be made.................thanks for your reply......................peace."
perhaps you have not seen this clarification i posted concerning the questions i asked What The Hey.........i have re-posted this in the hope that you might answer them within the context they were asked.........thank you...........peace.
Sorry but I disagree with you as does the Word of God. What really has a powerful hold on people is the guilt of sin,not sin itself.
But there are plenty of false pastors and teachers in the world reinforcing the guilt of sin on others because they really believe that is the way to escape it or to overcome it. The problem is, many people believe it is - but I've already covered that in a previous post. (The Word of God also covers that issue - and far better than I.) Go back and re-read it if you missed it.
God forbid His people learn to accept sin!
But God's people always accept sin - when they are made to feel guilty for it. To make matters worse, there are plenty of ignorant religious folk around to make people feel guilty over their sin - not including their own ignorance about it. It is written, "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law." (II Corinthians 15:56) There was an individual who came and he broke the sting and the strength of sin for us. His name was Jesus Christ.
Later on the apostle Paul said that he was what he was by the grace of God, and that his grace [God's grace] was NOT bestowed upon him in vain. (II Corinthians 15:10)
I think the capacity to feel guilty can be a good thing – a necessary feature that God built into this thing called our "conscience." It serves as an internal warning system – that we're drifting off course. Your rhetoric reminds me of a mindset exemplified by vp – by twisting Scripture out of context [like "unto the pure all things are pure"] he promoted a thought process that ignored the conscience and promoted a false sense of superiority – where he could boldly say in front of the Family Corps after showing his favorite porn video, "I've just so renewed my mind that stuff like this doesn't bother me." There's a thread that discusses this:
I think there's two kinds of sorrow – one can have godly sorrow, feeling remorse over doing something that was morally wrong…Then there's the calloused conscience type of sorrow – where the person is sorry only because they got caught.
I believe feelings of guilt, shame, remorse, etc. are there for a reason – as something that provides the impetus to repent.
II Corinthians 7:8-11 KJV
8 For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season.
9 Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.
10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.
I think the capacity to feel guilty can be a good thing – a necessary feature that God built into this thing called our "conscience." It serves as an internal warning system – that we're drifting off course.
I believe feelings of guilt, shame, remorse, etc. are there for a reason – as something that provides the impetus to repent.
... I will address this in a moment ... below this quote.
II Corinthians 7:8-11 KJV
...... v10, & 11 is the one I am going to focus on here.
10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.
It's interesting to note the word for "sorrow" there in verse 10 of II Corinthians 7 is the word "lupe" and not "katakrima" - which is guilt or condemnation. So there is a difference between sorrow and guilt - a connection you are apparently making between the two insinuating that "guilt is a good thing" - but the Word of God does not make that connection.
Sorrowful feelings can also lead one into guilt, which is why v10 of IICorinthians 7 warns us that the sorrow of the world worketh death. The word "repentance" in that verse is the word metameletos, a compound word from - meta=change and meletao=imagination, or simply to change what one is imagining or what they are meditating upon. When one succumbs to feelings of guilt, they certainly are not in the process of changing what they are meditating upon or thinking about - which is why that verse says the sorrow of the wolrd worketh death. (And yes, I personaly know someone who was made to feel guilty by religious folks for what he had done. He found no escape from his guilt and likewise committed suicide).
WTH, it sounds to me as if you have come up with some pretty sounding excuses NOT to repent of your sins, to NOT seek forgivness from those whom you have wronged, and to NOT offer restitution when possible.
It all sounds good, and reasonable.....but you will never experience the deliverance that you need by puffed up head knowledge to excuse ones self from your biblical, spiritual, and moral responsibility to your brothers and sisters in Christ, friend.
And yes, I personaly know someone who was made to feel guilty by religious folks for what he had done. He found no escape from his guilt and likewise committed suicide
yes very bad guilt
jesus christ saves to the uttermost i think i heard that
It's interesting to note the word for "sorrow" there in verse 10 of II Corinthians 7 is the word "lupe" and not "katakrima" - which is guilt or condemnation. So there is a difference between sorrow and guilt - a connection you are apparently making between the two insinuating that "guilt is a good thing" - but the Word of God does not make that connection.
Sorrowful feelings can also lead one into guilt, which is why v10 of IICorinthians 7 warns us that the sorrow of the world worketh death. The word "repentance" in that verse is the word metameletos, a compound word from - meta=change and meletao=imagination, or simply to change what one is imagining or what they are meditating upon. When one succumbs to feelings of guilt, they certainly are not in the process of changing what they are meditating upon or thinking about - which is why that verse says the sorrow of the wolrd worketh death. (And yes, I personaly know someone who was made to feel guilty by religious folks for what he had done. He found no escape from his guilt and likewise committed suicide).
Frankly, for someone who rants on another thread about how folks should read what's written – I'm a little disappointed in your response. I made no such statement equating guilt with sorrow. Let me post that again – and maybe I should use a big font [i know you like big fonts ] on a key point of my post:
I think the capacity to feel guilty can be a good thing – a necessary feature that God built into this thing called our "conscience." It serves as an internal warning system – that we're drifting off course. Your rhetoric reminds me of a mindset exemplified by vp – by twisting Scripture out of context [like "unto the pure all things are pure"] he promoted a thought process that ignored the conscience and promoted a false sense of superiority – where he could boldly say in front of the Family Corps after showing his favorite porn video, "I've just so renewed my mind that stuff like this doesn't bother me." There's a thread that discusses this:
I think there's two kinds of sorrow – one can have godly sorrow, feeling remorse over doing something that was morally wrong…Then there's the calloused conscience type of sorrow – where the person is sorry only because they got caught.
I believe feelings of guilt, shame, remorse, etc. are there for a reason – as something that provides the impetus to repent.
II Corinthians 7:8-11 KJV
8 For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season.
9 Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.
10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.
Let me explain certain phrases. "feelings of guilt, shame, remorse, etc." implies I'm talking about MORE than just two things [guilt and sorrow], note especially the abbreviation for "etcetera" – which Merriam-Webster's defines as a number of unspecified additional persons or things. The ONLY connection I made was suggesting they serve the purpose of moving us toward repentance – "…are there for a reason – as something that provides the impetus to repent."
On pages 196-198 of More Than Redemption: A Theology of Christian Counseling, Jay Adams talks about the purpose of guilt:
"…God made us so that we have a sense of guilt whenever we are guilty of wrongdoing. The conscience [the capacity for self-awareness and self-judgment, leading to self-condemnation or exoneration] in such situations triggers bad feelings in order to warn us that something is wrong and must be dealt with. That is the standard, traditional viewpoint that most Christians have taken of the totality of biblical teaching: A sense of guilt is an alarm and motivating factor to lead us to repentance…
…Though at times [of course] guilt is ineffective – the Bible itself teaches that a sense of guilt doesn't always lead to repentance among men – that doesn't mean it is wrong, or even ineffective…God's prophets plead, try to arouse a sense of guilt, etc., but often the people will not heed…
…to say that a sense of guilt was not built into man, but came only through parental training…denies the obvious fact that Adam fled, covered up, blamshifted, etc., out of a sense of guilt…When God asks, "Who told you that you were naked?" He refers to the awakening of the sense of guilt that Adam's conscience brought upon him when he sinned. Conscience – the capacity for self-evaluation and self-judgment – had been there from the beginning, but until Adam sinned had always rendered a positive judgment about his actions and attitudes."
End of excerpts
~~
I do understand what you were saying about religious folks dumping a guilt trip on someone. I saw that quite a bit in TWI. Odd it was hardly ever over a moral issue. It was usually leadership making folks feel bad because they weren't abundantly sharing enough, complaining about having to quite a job to attend the Rock of Ages and Corps week, not having the believing to put a PFAL class together, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Of course, I could have turned the tables on them and said hey, get off my case I'm going through a "sin boldly phase" right now!
hi T-Bone!..........thanks for your last couple of posts!...........very interesting and powerful points and observations, imho!..............good sources you quote also.......i find your posts to be well constructed and thought through........with an incisive wit and thought-provoking...........you encourage critical thinking with a warm, empathetic understanding for the "bottom-line" common human condition!.........i appreciate your taking the time to provide us with thoughful, articulate posts!.........please keep 'em coming!
jeff scio............i appreciate your consistent even-handedness in communicating with us greasespotters!.......your determination to seek peaceful and mutually respectful dialogue here in the about the way forum while striving to keep an "open mind" and a patient objectivity, is also appreciated!..........i too would enjoy an answer or 2 to my questions as posted, clarified and reiterated on this thread!...........................peace.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
110
143
84
69
Popular Days
Dec 14
74
Jan 4
67
Jan 12
62
Jan 3
58
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 110 posts
WhiteDove 143 posts
Ham 84 posts
JeffSjo 69 posts
Popular Days
Dec 14 2007
74 posts
Jan 4 2008
67 posts
Jan 12 2008
62 posts
Jan 3 2008
58 posts
rascal
This ISN`T a movie. It was real flesh and blood people who had their hearts stomped on and their lives destroyed.
WTH, it takes compassion and understanding to attempt to comprehend the damage wrought.
I think that you don`t want to face your own culpability, there for you must place all of this in the relm of story and movies made up for others profit and entertainment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Maybe this thread should have been titled...
*How whatthehay WISHES we would deal with his offenses*
Sorry friend, we aren`t letting you n your buds off the hook that easily :)
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Now there's something we can agree upon. "Sin boldly" was probably vic's motto.
You know…you bring up a good point…Paul recommended excommunication of the sexually immoral believer in I Corinthians 5 out of concern for the spiritual wellbeing of the church - and of that individual believer too! If you follow up on this incident in II Corinthians – you'll find the sexually immoral person did repent and Paul told the church to accept him back into the fold with open arms.…
Now imagine – instead of reproving someone like that – we promote them to be the head of a religious organization…and with a personal mission statement like "sin boldly" I can just imagine the "great example" he'd set for followers under his "teaching ministry." Guess he could have ended his porn video sessions with "go and do thou likewise."
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Once again, I think it's great we at least see eye to eye on vp's character…Perhaps his idea of the four 15s was different than most folks:
· Drink 15 ounces of Drambui before breakfast
· Watch 15 minute clip of favorite porn video
· Take 15 minutes to review new Corps applicants, scan for babes
· Find another 15 authors to plagiarize from
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi T-Bone,
All day I've been hoping you didn't fire back by calling WhatTheHey "Bonehead" or something similar. I didn't want some good discussion buried beneath pages of pointless name calling and recriminations.
Isn't namecalling a bit out of step with stated website policy?
I was glad that yesterday I limited myself to simply implying cussing at a stupid movie and a heartless point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hi Jeff,
It's always good to see you at Grease Spot! I like your posts – level-headed, honest, and graceful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
I was going to elaborate further on a point I was making but then ran out of time.
The scariest movie of all time (The Exorcist) has returned - in a version you've never seen. Warner Home Video put out a “25th Anniversary Special Edition” for William Friedkin’s The Exorcist on DVD and laserdisc. The expanded 75-minute featurette is a new documentary produced by the BBC specifically for the film's 25th anniversary edition, featuring more than 11 minutes of never-before-seen footage. Deleted scenes—and some new digital effects—were inserted into the re-release subtitled "The Version You've Never Seen" in 2000. Even though "The Exorcist" has been classified as a horror flick, it is supposedly based on a true story. It is based on a 1949 exorcism Blatty heard about while he was a student in the class of 1950 at Georgetown University, a Jesuit and Catholic school.
According to Rev. Father William O'Malley (who played Father Joseph Dyer in the film), the events depicted in the film are approximately 80% true. He claims the big discrepancies between the movie and case it was inspired by were: it was a boy who was possessed, not a girl; the possession did not occur in Georgetown, but just outside DC in Cottage City, MD. In this case, the boy's head did not rotate 180 degrees, though he claims that nearly everything else in the movie actually occurred. The name of the boy who was subject of the "true" exorcism that inspired Blatty's novel was Ronald Hunkeler. After he was "cured" he went on to attend Gonzaga College High School in Washington, DC, graduating in 1954. He was later a scientist with NASA. He refuses all interviews regarding his exorcism. At last account, he was rumored to be living in Laurel, MD. (From: Wikipedia) So apparently there is some credibility even in this horror flick.
But the truth of the matter is we've already seen it all - when people battle with demons. Holy water and green puke fly from every imaginable angle as this battle of good and evil continues to rage on and on. But in the end, who is the real winner? Just what are the two "biggest demons"people struggle with the most? Money and Sex. The reason we continue to struggle with these demons is because of the emotional attatchments we have to them. Now if you want to emotionaly incite someone, then these two demons are the best ones out there.
In Acts 19 we read how Demetrius a silversmith who made shrines for the goddess Diana emotionally incited a mob of people against the apostle Paul. How was he able to accomplish that? He first got them emotionally riled up by getting to "their pocketbook" - by telling the mob their craft was in danger. Here he first riles people with money. Then he goes on to mention the Goddess Diana ... how she would be despised and her magnifiicence be destroyed ... (and note this) whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. (Acts 19:27) Even though we don't bow down and worship a goddess Diana, we still are worshipping what that goddess represents.
There are references to Diana in common literature. For example, in Shakespeare's play, Romeo and Juliet, many references are made to her. Rosaline, a beautiful woman who has sworn to chastity, is said to have "Dian's wit". Later on in the play, Romeo says, "It is the East, and Juliet is the sun. Arise fair sun, and kill the envious moon." He is saying that Juliet is better than Diana and Rosaline for not swearing chastity. Diana is also a character in the 1876 Leo Delibe ballet 'Sylvia'. The plot deals with Sylvia, one of Diana's nymphs and sworn to chastity and Diana's assault on Sylvia's affections for the shepherd Amyntas. (Excerpt from: Wikipedia)
What the goddess Diana represents is chastity - chastity of course referring to the sexual behavior of a man or woman acceptable to the ethic norms and guidelines of a particular culture, civilization or religion. For example, within the scope of Christian ethic, Roman Catholics view sex within marriage as chaste, but prohibit the use of artificial contraception as an offense against chastity, seeing contraception as contrary to God's will and design of human sexuality. Many Anglican churches allow for artificial contraception, seeing the restriction of family size as possibly not contrary to God's will. A stricter view is held by the Shakers, who prohibit marriage (and sexual intercourse under any circumstances) as a violation of chastity.
Getting people emotionally riled up over the gods of money and sex (even chase sex) is nothing new. Demetrius himself did it back there in Acts 19. What was the response by the majority of the people? The response is still the same today - "And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians." These two gods - money and sex still have a very powerful hold on people and God forbid people learn to despise these two gods?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
apparently he didn't forbid vpw and lcm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
wth.......don't you mean 360 degrees?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[WordWolf in boldface as usual.
I shall also shorten the original post. Feel free to jump back using the arrow or scroll up
for the original post in its entirety-I kept what was germane to my reply.]
All sin still comes down to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.
(I John 2:16)
Taking money or sex out of its proper place-
like stealing money from God's people, or using a coersive method to get them to have
sex with you-
is sin, and falls under those categories, too.
Sin still has a powerful hold on people.
God forbid His people learn to accept sin!]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi WhatTheHey,
Thanks for clarifying your intentions with the explanations. When I make biblical references I'm seeking to apply the scripture to more current events that fit the overall topic of this website. I freely ask for everyones patience with that and hope that everyone can consider the underlying principles if they're not with me in regards to reasoning out of the scripture.
I have a hard time comparing the movie to TWI because for me the movie's fiction, but TWI is fact.
At one point, people called Barnabus Jupiter, and they called Paul Mercury. They did not stand for it and before long they were as hated as they had been so recently liked. Acts 14:11-19
Not too long ago I was with a small splinter group that called one man "The Word in the Flesh"
In both cases people made men idols. In one case was it stopped. Paul and Barnabus stopped it because the fear of the Lord made them wise.
Paul shared his weakness with eveyone and desired everyone to know that the same Lord would judge him and them, and he never tried to raise himself over that in people's eyes. Neither did he let people put him on a pedastal.
THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN
p.s. People can get riled when you touch their idols no matter which ones they happen to be at the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Religion keeps telling you all you have to do to overcome sin is just throw "Holy Water" on all the green pukey stuff in your life - and then everything will magically be ok. But all it becomes is a real scary "The Exorcist" movie whenever we attempt to get rid of all that pukey stuff. We've got to make sure that "God is in the House."
But all one ends up with is - is an ugly mix of Holy water and green puke! Nick Cave says (sings) it well ...
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
perhaps you have not seen this clarification i posted concerning the questions i asked What The Hey.........i have re-posted this in the hope that you might answer them within the context they were asked.........thank you...........peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think the capacity to feel guilty can be a good thing – a necessary feature that God built into this thing called our "conscience." It serves as an internal warning system – that we're drifting off course. Your rhetoric reminds me of a mindset exemplified by vp – by twisting Scripture out of context [like "unto the pure all things are pure"] he promoted a thought process that ignored the conscience and promoted a false sense of superiority – where he could boldly say in front of the Family Corps after showing his favorite porn video, "I've just so renewed my mind that stuff like this doesn't bother me." There's a thread that discusses this:
TWI's Sedative to the Conscience
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=258084
I think there's two kinds of sorrow – one can have godly sorrow, feeling remorse over doing something that was morally wrong…Then there's the calloused conscience type of sorrow – where the person is sorry only because they got caught.
I believe feelings of guilt, shame, remorse, etc. are there for a reason – as something that provides the impetus to repent.
II Corinthians 7:8-11 KJV
8 For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season.
9 Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.
10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i believe in love
is there any logic to that
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Dear Excathedra,
Logical I think, you're intending to pick the winning side.
Dear DontWorryBeHappy,
I'm looking forward to WTH taking up the discussion that you've invited WTH to have with you too. :)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
It's interesting to note the word for "sorrow" there in verse 10 of II Corinthians 7 is the word "lupe" and not "katakrima" - which is guilt or condemnation. So there is a difference between sorrow and guilt - a connection you are apparently making between the two insinuating that "guilt is a good thing" - but the Word of God does not make that connection.
Sorrowful feelings can also lead one into guilt, which is why v10 of IICorinthians 7 warns us that the sorrow of the world worketh death. The word "repentance" in that verse is the word metameletos, a compound word from - meta=change and meletao=imagination, or simply to change what one is imagining or what they are meditating upon. When one succumbs to feelings of guilt, they certainly are not in the process of changing what they are meditating upon or thinking about - which is why that verse says the sorrow of the wolrd worketh death. (And yes, I personaly know someone who was made to feel guilty by religious folks for what he had done. He found no escape from his guilt and likewise committed suicide).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
WTH, it sounds to me as if you have come up with some pretty sounding excuses NOT to repent of your sins, to NOT seek forgivness from those whom you have wronged, and to NOT offer restitution when possible.
It all sounds good, and reasonable.....but you will never experience the deliverance that you need by puffed up head knowledge to excuse ones self from your biblical, spiritual, and moral responsibility to your brothers and sisters in Christ, friend.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
yes very bad guilt
jesus christ saves to the uttermost i think i heard that
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
the only really sad thing is, is that veepee played upon my guilt for having been sexually abused as a child
not nice
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Frankly, for someone who rants on another thread about how folks should read what's written – I'm a little disappointed in your response. I made no such statement equating guilt with sorrow. Let me post that again – and maybe I should use a big font [i know you like big fonts
] on a key point of my post:
Let me explain certain phrases. "feelings of guilt, shame, remorse, etc." implies I'm talking about MORE than just two things [guilt and sorrow], note especially the abbreviation for "etcetera" – which Merriam-Webster's defines as a number of unspecified additional persons or things. The ONLY connection I made was suggesting they serve the purpose of moving us toward repentance – "…are there for a reason – as something that provides the impetus to repent."
On pages 196-198 of More Than Redemption: A Theology of Christian Counseling, Jay Adams talks about the purpose of guilt:
"…God made us so that we have a sense of guilt whenever we are guilty of wrongdoing. The conscience [the capacity for self-awareness and self-judgment, leading to self-condemnation or exoneration] in such situations triggers bad feelings in order to warn us that something is wrong and must be dealt with. That is the standard, traditional viewpoint that most Christians have taken of the totality of biblical teaching: A sense of guilt is an alarm and motivating factor to lead us to repentance…
…Though at times [of course] guilt is ineffective – the Bible itself teaches that a sense of guilt doesn't always lead to repentance among men – that doesn't mean it is wrong, or even ineffective…God's prophets plead, try to arouse a sense of guilt, etc., but often the people will not heed…
…to say that a sense of guilt was not built into man, but came only through parental training…denies the obvious fact that Adam fled, covered up, blamshifted, etc., out of a sense of guilt…When God asks, "Who told you that you were naked?" He refers to the awakening of the sense of guilt that Adam's conscience brought upon him when he sinned. Conscience – the capacity for self-evaluation and self-judgment – had been there from the beginning, but until Adam sinned had always rendered a positive judgment about his actions and attitudes."
End of excerpts
~~
I do understand what you were saying about religious folks dumping a guilt trip on someone. I saw that quite a bit in TWI. Odd it was hardly ever over a moral issue. It was usually leadership making folks feel bad because they weren't abundantly sharing enough, complaining about having to quite a job to attend the Rock of Ages and Corps week, not having the believing to put a PFAL class together, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Of course, I could have turned the tables on them and said hey, get off my case I'm going through a "sin boldly phase" right now!
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
hi T-Bone!..........thanks for your last couple of posts!...........very interesting and powerful points and observations, imho!..............good sources you quote also.......i find your posts to be well constructed and thought through........with an incisive wit and thought-provoking...........you encourage critical thinking with a warm, empathetic understanding for the "bottom-line" common human condition!.........i appreciate your taking the time to provide us with thoughful, articulate posts!.........please keep 'em coming!
jeff scio............i appreciate your consistent even-handedness in communicating with us greasespotters!.......your determination to seek peaceful and mutually respectful dialogue here in the about the way forum while striving to keep an "open mind" and a patient objectivity, is also appreciated!..........i too would enjoy an answer or 2 to my questions as posted, clarified and reiterated on this thread!...........................peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks, Don't Worry!
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.