If people teach us things that are true then they are truth., despite what they may do in their personal life . What teachers taught me is still true despite what moral flaws they may have had , some I may not even may have known about. It does not make what they said untrue. I don't know what lives my teachers lived, when someone writes a book and we learn from it , do we do a background check and if we did is it true based on the fact that it is? or on the writers moral life? Truth is Truth peoples flaws are peoples flaws they dont negate truth. That said yes their actions can make it dificult to accept their words, and lack of trust in those words can cause one to not accept them as truth even though they may be.
And yes I agree with you.
and truth should be something you can trust or people maybe even
It's clear that you don't want to answer the questions.
ummm, whitedove... you've accused me of this before (i.e. that i didn't want to address scripture)...
and when i did answer all your questions and comments (in my post #202), you completely ignored my answers...
so what's gonna be different about it this time??
i tried to give you the benefit of the doubt...
but i guess you really don't want any information...
from the sound of your last post, it doesn't look like you know too much about Jesus...
because he definitely DID SOUND THE ALARM and give MANY CLEAR WARNINGS...
afterall, He ISTHE SHEPHERD... and that's what shepherds do: warn people about danger...
(i don't know why you are stuck on herod... he's kinda obvious... people need to be warned about the more subtle dangers of those in spiritual "leadership" positions, such as pharisees... which Jesus gave repeated clear warnings about... but you seem to be stuck on a political figure??)
Yeah I get it warn the sheep BAAAH....... Do you think that is all shepherd should be doing ?
Talking about the wolves day in day out or should he have a plan of action to restore?
Do you really think preaching to the choir is warning ?
That's just one of thousands how many days worth of warning is there? ,
and don't you think after a month or so of reading even if another word is not spoken, most would feel sufficiently warned?
So what are we tornado sirens?
Is that our lot in life ?
You may think talking about others sins benefits others but does it really?
are these the questions that you are referring to??
they don't seem like honest questions at all... just more mocking...
that is why i said that you don't understand what a watchman is or does... and why you don't understand the analogy of "the shepherd"...
if you really want to know what a watchman is called to do, then read ezekiel!!
in any case, all of your questions are answered in this verse (which you evidently ignored... you seem to ignore a lot of things, whitedove)
On Your Walls O Jerusalem I Have Appointed Watchmen; All Day And All Night they Will Never Keep Silent. (Isaiah 62:8)
and yes, while exposing the false prophets and false teachers, one will of necessity expose their "sins"...
Does it help one to believe greater or is it an enemy of believing?
as for this question, it is really a nonsensical statement that can only be understood in the context of "way" theology...
the verb "believe/believing" needs an object...
believe greater in what?/enemy of believing in what??
It's clear that you don't want to answer the questions. It's clear that Jesus or his followers did not spend their days talking about personal evil day in day out , that's what is clear. It's clear that their warnings were to the point and then the focus was not continously on the sins of others but upon helping. Anyone can run their mouth about someone elses sins. that does not take much effort. If you want to stay stuck talking about others sins fine. Dont try to pass it off as something Jesus would do clearly he did not engage in such actions. Jesus helped those in need he did not set them down and tell them all of Herod's sins thinking that would somehow help them.
Have you not read Matthew 23, where Jesus confronts the scribes and Pharisees in detail? Very interesting read. He uses the words as a figure of speech "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" 8 times. This represents a new beginning. He teaches in detail to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
So by your logic, Jesus himself spent a significant amount of time "running his mouth about someone else's sins", and that doesn't take much effort.
The Bible speaks differently. Considering deeply in detail all of the leaven of the Pharisees, as well as highlighting in detail the hypocrisy they functioned with in the outward appearance being godly but the inner reality being evil, can be healing. It can present a new beginning to people.
In this thread, Kristen's account presents a story that unfolds to detail out this exact hypocrisy. The accounts of abuse people have suffered can be healing to those who have suffered similarly. It can expose evil which previously was unexposed. It can help people leave, and stop supporting evil with their time, effort and money. That is a good thing.
Have you not read Matthew 23, where Jesus confronts the scribes and Pharisees in detail? Very interesting read. He uses the words as a figure of speech "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" 8 times. This represents a new beginning. He teaches in detail to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
So by your logic, Jesus himself spent a significant amount of time "running his mouth about someone else's sins", and that doesn't take much effort.
The Bible speaks differently. Considering deeply in detail all of the leaven of the Pharisees, as well as highlighting in detail the hypocrisy they functioned with in the outward appearance being godly but the inner reality being evil, can be healing. It can present a new beginning to people.
In this thread, Kristen's account presents a story that unfolds to detail out this exact hypocrisy. The accounts of abuse people have suffered can be healing to those who have suffered similarly. It can expose evil which previously was unexposed. It can help people leave, and stop supporting evil with their time, effort and money. That is a good thing.
I believe I mentioned that warning has it place, that said I don't see lots of records where Jesus spent considerable time on it in the overall scope of scripture. nor do I see where he looked specifically at any Scribes or Pharisees personal life and commented over and over daily on the same subject for years upon years. I see where he addressed them as a group, not where he called each one out by name and ranted about every detail of their life. On the other hand I think he did mention something about a beam and motes in the eye. One could argue that in his day the leaders were spending peoples money on high living, and owning too many chariots, as some have discussed VP's cars in our time , If it really was so important that we be warned of such things Jesus should have felt the need to talk about it in minute detail day after day . Sorry I don't see that happening in scripture. Apparently his concern was not with discussing their personal sins but with overall points of contrast. I see where he warned of specific things none personal in nature and then focused on a solution not the sins . To suggest that it in any way compares to gossiping about someone with no plan for resolve is foolish. It is not even close to the same thing. While having no internet in his day of course , I see no lengthy accounts of Jesus sitting in the temple and listing what every Scribe was doing or has done wrong in their life. who ,and how many times they had sex with, nor did I see him argue over every "the" they said looking for some twisted meaning. Apparently he did not think that was the way people needed to be warned. I'd agree.
I believe I mentioned that warning has it place, that said I don't see lots of records where Jesus spent considerable time on it in the overall scope of scripture. nor do I see where he looked specifically at any Scribes or Pharisees personal life and commented over and over daily on the same subject for years upon years. I see where he addressed them as a group, not where he called each one out by name and ranted about every detail of their life. On the other hand I think he did mention something about a beam and motes in the eye. One could argue that in his day the leaders were spending peoples money on high living, and owning too many chariots, as some have discussed VP's cars in our time , If it really was so important that we be warned of such things Jesus should have felt the need to talk about it in minute detail day after day . Sorry I don't see that happening in scripture. Apparently his concern was not with discussing their personal sins but with overall points of contrast. I see where he warned of specific things none personal in nature and then focused on a solution not the sins . To suggest that it in any way compares to gossiping about someone with no plan for resolve is foolish. It is not even close to the same thing. While having no internet in his day of course , I see no lengthy accounts of Jesus sitting in the temple and listing what every Scribe was doing or has done wrong in their life. who ,and how many times they had sex with, nor did I see him argue over every "the" they said looking for some twisted meaning. Apparently he did not think that was the way people needed to be warned. I'd agree.
WD,
Kristen's sharing is her unique life's experience. She is sharing it to provide clarity, and help those that can benefit from it. She is not commenting on Pharisee's personal lives over and over day after day. The Pharisees attacked Jesus as a group, so he addressed them as a group. The sins of TWI leadership many times were individual offenses as opposed to group offenses. So responding in generalities to them as a group makes zero logical sense. The coverups of the individual sins were group efforts, so we can call them modern-day Pharisees, that strain at gnats and swallow camels, that tithe of mint and spices, but ignore the weightier matters in life, that need to learn what it means that God would have mercy and not sacrifice.
Pharisees typically didn't own too many chariots. They were the working-class religious zealots. The Saduccees were the ruling class.
If you'd take the time to look through the account in Matthew 23 rather than making vague generalizations about it, you could learn some great detail about what Jesus did think needed to be confronted.
With respect to handling individual sins publically especially of the sexual nature, you don't need to go much farther than Corinthians, in 1 Cor. 5:1 one individual is singled out for a sexual sin, and Paul's recommendation was to handle it and confront it publicly. This is not even a person with a leadership responsibility, yet it is to be brought up in an epistle meant to be read in all the churches, and with impact for generations to follow.
That is not gossip, that is not a lack of concern with personal sin and the impact it had on all the believers. That is confronting it, saying it's wrong, and handling it.
For you to state that Jesus would not want these things exposed or handled publicly, or that he would not want accounts like this to get out to warn people is a completely slanted view of what the scripture teaches, and it is one that is similar to the way TWI leadership handles these things, to discount them and sweep them under the carpet. It has taken legal action to change this, when in all honesty it should have been handled from a good moral Christian conscience. Yet that is the pattern - there is no good honest moral Christian conscience when it comes to TWI leadership.
and for pointing out the example of public exposure of individual sexual sin in 1st Cor 5...
peace,
jen-o
Not really , You responded in detail about something else. You sent a list of books to read not an answer. after changing the subject from worship to shepherds to warning. None of which were original questions.
Your answer:
I guess you don't want to address what the scriptures say like Matthew 4:10
i don't have to "address" the scriptures... i completely agree with the scriptures and with matt. 4:10!!
but then again, i don't have to try and make the scriptures fit like a "hand in a glove" with mathematical precision and scientific exactness...
Translated I believe the scriptures ,but can't show how they fit with my theories, nor do I feel the need to do so , they don't need to make sense just say, what I say, they say.
I believe I mentioned that warning has it place, that said I don't see lots of records where Jesus spent considerable time on it in the overall scope of scripture. nor do I see where he looked specifically at any Scribes or Pharisees personal life and commented over and over daily on the same subject for years upon years. I see where he addressed them as a group, not where he called each one out by name and ranted about every detail of their life. If it really was so important that we be warned of such things Jesus should have felt the need to talk about it in minute detail day after day . Sorry I don't see that happening in scripture. Apparently his concern was not with discussing their personal sins but with overall points of contrast. I see where he warned of specific things none personal in nature and then focused on a solution not the sins . To suggest that it in any way compares to gossiping about someone with no plan for resolve is foolish. It is not even close to the same thing. While having no internet in his day of course , I see no lengthy accounts of Jesus sitting in the temple and listing what every Scribe was doing or has done wrong in their life. who ,and how many times they had sex with, nor did I see him argue over every "the" they said looking for some twisted meaning. Apparently he did not think that was the way people needed to be warned. I'd agree.
So I'll ask again where in scripture is it that Jesus ever has records where you see him by name day after day discussing the sins of an individual over and over again?
Do you really think shepherds just warn the sheep , Really what would be the point? What would sheep do about a warning do they understand language? Hey sheep wolf out there by the tree....... I'd say shepherds don't stand around talking about the wolf at all and what he does or did. I'd say they just fix the problem rather than standing around talking about the wolf.
Have you not read Matthew 23, where Jesus confronts the scribes and Pharisees in detail? Very interesting read. He uses the words as a figure of speech "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" 8 times. This represents a new beginning. He teaches in detail to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
So by your logic, Jesus himself spent a significant amount of time "running his mouth about someone else's sins", and that doesn't take much effort.
No he didn't that is a usage of a generaric term "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" it does not address anyone in specific or their sins . There are none named by name and continually discussed. The point being address the wrong not rant about the individual involved.
Kristen's sharing is her unique life's experience. She is sharing it to provide clarity, and help those that can benefit from it. She is not commenting on Pharisee's personal lives over and over day after day. The Pharisees attacked Jesus as a group, so he addressed them as a group. The sins of TWI leadership many times were individual offenses as opposed to group offenses. So responding in generalities to them as a group makes zero logical sense. The cover-ups of the individual sins were group efforts, so we can call them modern-day Pharisees, that strain at gnats and swallow camels, that tithe of mint and spices, but ignore the weightier matters in life, that need to learn what it means that God would have mercy and not sacrifice.
So then you are saying that the Pharisee's did not have individual sins, cause I'm bettin they did just like those in the way yet Jesus seemed to only address them as a group. Why do you think that is?
Pharisees typically didn't own too many chariots. They were the working-class religious zealots. The Sadducees were the ruling class.
Would you like another example , I think you get the point Jesus did not single out individuals and sins and discuss them day after day. He did not discuss exactly how Joe Scribe spent temple money or how or who Sam Pharisee slept with. he spoke of the general sin stealing or sexual sins only. You think he did, show me......... chapter and verse.
If you'd take the time to look through the account in Matthew 23 rather than making vague generalizations about it, you could learn some great detail about what Jesus did think needed to be confronted.
With respect to handling individual sins publically especially of the sexual nature, you don't need to go much farther than Corinthians, in 1 Cor. 5:1 one individual is singled out for a sexual sin, and Paul's recommendation was to handle it and confront it publicly. This is not even a person with a leadership responsibility, yet it is to be brought up in an epistle meant to be read in all the churches, and with impact for generations to follow.
That is not gossip, that is not a lack of concern with personal sin and the impact it had on all the believers. That is confronting it, saying it's wrong, and handling it.
So exactly who was that he was addressing in 1 Cor. 5:1? Sorry I missed the name there?
No he didn't that is a usage of a generaric term "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" it does not address anyone in specific or their sins . There are none named by name and continually discussed. The point being address the wrong not rant about the individual involved.
Where exactly is it you see 'ranting about the individual involved' ??? This podcast is an individual's account.
There are individuals in the gospels who wronged Jesus - like Herod for example. Pauls talks about Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil.
As I stated before with the Pharisees, there were a group of them all together attacking Jesus to try and discount his healing people on the sabbath, not washing hands enough, hanging out with publicans and sinners. Since they were attacking all together, he addressed them as a group. You failed to address that point, and yet it's your main founding logic behind telling Kristen and all here that it's wrong to bring up an individual's sexual sins.
So then you are saying that the Pharisee's did not have individual sins, cause I'm bettin they did just like those in the way yet Jesus seemed to only address them as a group. Why do you think that is?
No I am not saying Pharisees did not have individual sins. If you would actually read my posts, I have pointed out numerous times that Jesus addressed them as a group because they were criticizing him and attacking him as a group.
Would you like another example , I think you get the point Jesus did not single out individuals and sins and discuss them day after day. He did not discuss exactly how Joe Scribe spent temple money or how or who Sam Pharisee slept with. he spoke of the general sin stealing or sexual sins only. You think he did, show me......... chapter and verse.
I do not get your point. You are ranting about someone singling out individuals and their sins and discussing them day after day, and how Jesus didn't do that. Is this an overall condemnation of all of GS? If that's how you feel, then don't let the door hit you where God split you on your way out of here.
Jesus dealt with individuals and their sins all the time. The man with the possessed kid trying to pin his believing on Jesus - his response - 'if you can believe, all things are possible'. Raising Lazurus from the dead - everyone criticizing him - he put every single one out of the room. The person criticizing the woman for wiping his feet with her hair - he confronted that sin right there. Even in his resurrected body he told Peter - what is it to you? when he asked about the disciple he loved. He most certainly singled out individuals, dealt with their sins, and if they were responsive helped teach and heal them. Even if they were not, like Judas Iscariot, he still dealt with him individually and publically, and the record is there for everyone to see. He healed a guard's ear after someone lopped it off, confronting that sin.
These examples are numerous and right off the top of my head. You seem to be the one that is trying to prove that Jesus did not single out individuals. So prove it - where is your chapter and verse?
So exactly who was that he was addressing in 1 Cor. 5:1? Sorry I missed the name there?
While he doesn't name the name there, he names the report, and that the person is commonly known. He addresses ONE INDIVIDUAL, and that person would be very well known to anyone in the Corinth area involved in Paul's teachings.
You have some really stupid logic there, WD. By your logic, maybe courts shouldn't single out individuals who commit rape or talk about the rapists' sins day after day during their trial. Maybe trials should only deal with groups of people in general. Maybe there are no individuals that abuse, it's just society in general's problem. Maybe even your own stupid and intolerant logic is not really your fault - it's somehow some group's fault, whoever raised you, or taught you wrong, or whatever.
People who sexually abuse others in the name of God SHOULD be exposed, they SHOULD have people talking about their hypocrisy, and they SHOULD become famous for their deeds. Kind of like OJ Simpson.
It's a juvenile assumption that ALL (don't even try that "exception or distinction?" BS on me - I'm not in the mood) of Jesus' words are recorded in four books. How do we know if he condemned Rabbi OyVey specifically or not? And if a person had been singled out, some mook would be complaining that that condemnation was so specific that it didn't apply today.
Also consider that he was dealing with primarily ONE religion - and maybe a few sects, and the Roman government along with the Gentile population. There is a theme of exposing religion as the life-sucking mind-numbing thing that it is.
Notice that in the OT there are specific condemnations. I'd say that there is a precedent that can be claimed here.
HERE at the GSC - the point is to deal with the issues of the cult that we all had in common. There is error in doctrine to be addressed, and then there are the individuals that taught that error and added to it with their evil practices which were taught by example. Not quite the same purpose as that put forth in the gospels - tho it is closely related.
Okay - back to your regularly scheduled program...
Do you really think shepherds just warn the sheep , Really what would be the point? What would sheep do about a warning do they understand language? Hey sheep wolf out there by the tree....... I'd say shepherds don't stand around talking about the wolf at all and what he does or did. I'd say they just fix the problem rather than standing around talking about the wolf.
i'd say that you have no scriptural basis to back up your opinion...
and that's why you have offered no scriptural support!
and yet, you refuse to read any scriptural support that backs up the position that shepherds do indeed WARN THE SHEEP!
btw, you ask "what would be the point?"... the point is: to protect the sheep!
What would sheep do about a warning do they understand language?
shepherds don't stand around talking about the wolf at all and what he does or did
it is also CLEAR that you do not understand the ANALOGY of the shepherd!
whitedove, this is not referring to LITERAL sheep!
it is an analogy used to illuminate how Jesus (and pastors) are suppose to protect and guide PEOPLE!
i think that due to your obsession to protect your memories of twi and its leaders, you have failed to see what CLEAR scriptures say about wolves...
perhaps, you flat out reject the clear scriptures on this topic (i hope not) in favor of protecting your cherished memories...
but this is not an honest approach to scripture...
and of course, the logic of your argument is flawed as well (as chockfull has noted)...
i really have tried to see how people can be blinded to truth in this manner, but like i've said before, i can only come up with idolatry as the cause...
you shouldn't have to need a scripture to be able to say: xyz was a pervert... or xyz committed perverted acts...
but when certain people try to shut down a discussion... that consists of the exposure of perverted acts... which have been committed by someone that they have evidently elevated and esteemed highly... and when these certain people try to shut it down by hiding behind their own private interpretation of the bible... while claiming that it is both unnecessary and unbiblical to talk about these "sins" (i.e. perverted acts),... then it becomes necessary to speak up for the truth that it IS indeed BIBLICAL to expose these sinful, perverted acts...
[dang that was a long sentence... so i went back and put the dots in to chunk the thoughts... LOL]
anyway, you shouldn't have to defend your right to expose evil like this... and this is the first time i have ever seen anyone try to hide behind the bible in order to protect a pervert and cover up his criminal acts...
Wow, I head the interview. VP always taught from the get go that we stand approved before God and that all men are liars and I never heard him remove himself.
This booksalesperson shared a very juicy protion fo her book and I am not buying. Why didn't you ask just what she expected when she entered his motorcoach? What a joke and where is her spirituality now? Psychology?
Sounds like more of the Dubofsky deal. Oh these poor victims.
Wow, I head the interview. VP always taught from the get go that we stand approved before God and that all men are liars and I never heard him remove himself.
This booksalesperson shared a very juicy protion fo her book and I am not buying. Why didn't you ask just what she expected when she entered his motorcoach? What a joke and where is her spirituality now? Psychology?
Sounds like more of the Dubofsky deal. Oh these poor victims.
Liven Large
Arizona
Perhaps you can clarify for me.
Are you saying it is her own fault that she became one of VPW's victims?
Yeah, anybody should EXPECT to get raped and abused if they meet up with a MOG, now shouldn't they? And if they don't, then they get what's coming to 'em, right? :blink:
Arizona, are you going to be another VPW defender that I am going to have to place ignore? Interesting, if Wierwille had been homosexual pedophile and rapist to Craig, Chris, Mike, OM,WD, Jonitham, and Arizona, and they were complaing about abuse here on Greasespot, and the women had scorned them saying"But he taught the Word perfectly, not known since Jesus, Peter, and Paul" accusing them of lying and defamation of the Man of God, Would they be furious for no one believing them? Just wanted to put them in Kris' shoes and feel the heat and rejection.
Wow, I head the interview. VP always taught from the get go that we stand approved before God and that all men are liars and I never heard him remove himself.
If all men are liars, how can you believe anything he said, including the "word" that he taught? It's like the old riddle - Everything A says is a lie... so if A says B is lying.... it gets silly if you try to take it literally. When the Bible says "all men are liars" it obviously doesn't mean EVERYTHING that anyone says is lie. VP himself taught about the difference between "all without exception" and "all with distinction." But when a person puts himself in front of people and claims to be a "man of God" then it is not unreasonable to expect counselling when you go to him for help.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
40
26
37
Popular Days
May 8
31
May 9
31
May 12
26
May 11
21
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 26 posts
oldiesman 40 posts
jen-o 26 posts
waysider 37 posts
Popular Days
May 8 2008
31 posts
May 9 2008
31 posts
May 12 2008
26 posts
May 11 2008
21 posts
WhiteDove
If people teach us things that are true then they are truth., despite what they may do in their personal life . What teachers taught me is still true despite what moral flaws they may have had , some I may not even may have known about. It does not make what they said untrue. I don't know what lives my teachers lived, when someone writes a book and we learn from it , do we do a background check and if we did is it true based on the fact that it is? or on the writers moral life? Truth is Truth peoples flaws are peoples flaws they dont negate truth. That said yes their actions can make it dificult to accept their words, and lack of trust in those words can cause one to not accept them as truth even though they may be.
And yes I agree with you.
and truth should be something you can trust or people maybe even
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
and when i did answer all your questions and comments (in my post #202), you completely ignored my answers...
so what's gonna be different about it this time??
i tried to give you the benefit of the doubt...
but i guess you really don't want any information...
from the sound of your last post, it doesn't look like you know too much about Jesus...
because he definitely DID SOUND THE ALARM and give MANY CLEAR WARNINGS...
afterall, He IS THE SHEPHERD... and that's what shepherds do: warn people about danger...
(i don't know why you are stuck on herod... he's kinda obvious... people need to be warned about the more subtle dangers of those in spiritual "leadership" positions, such as pharisees... which Jesus gave repeated clear warnings about... but you seem to be stuck on a political figure??)
are these the questions that you are referring to??
they don't seem like honest questions at all... just more mocking...
that is why i said that you don't understand what a watchman is or does... and why you don't understand the analogy of "the shepherd"...
if you really want to know what a watchman is called to do, then read ezekiel!!
in any case, all of your questions are answered in this verse (which you evidently ignored... you seem to ignore a lot of things, whitedove)
On Your Walls O Jerusalem I Have Appointed Watchmen; All Day And All Night they Will Never Keep Silent. (Isaiah 62:8)
and yes, while exposing the false prophets and false teachers, one will of necessity expose their "sins"...
as for this question, it is really a nonsensical statement that can only be understood in the context of "way" theology...the verb "believe/believing" needs an object...
believe greater in what?/enemy of believing in what??
peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Have you not read Matthew 23, where Jesus confronts the scribes and Pharisees in detail? Very interesting read. He uses the words as a figure of speech "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" 8 times. This represents a new beginning. He teaches in detail to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
So by your logic, Jesus himself spent a significant amount of time "running his mouth about someone else's sins", and that doesn't take much effort.
The Bible speaks differently. Considering deeply in detail all of the leaven of the Pharisees, as well as highlighting in detail the hypocrisy they functioned with in the outward appearance being godly but the inner reality being evil, can be healing. It can present a new beginning to people.
In this thread, Kristen's account presents a story that unfolds to detail out this exact hypocrisy. The accounts of abuse people have suffered can be healing to those who have suffered similarly. It can expose evil which previously was unexposed. It can help people leave, and stop supporting evil with their time, effort and money. That is a good thing.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I believe I mentioned that warning has it place, that said I don't see lots of records where Jesus spent considerable time on it in the overall scope of scripture. nor do I see where he looked specifically at any Scribes or Pharisees personal life and commented over and over daily on the same subject for years upon years. I see where he addressed them as a group, not where he called each one out by name and ranted about every detail of their life. On the other hand I think he did mention something about a beam and motes in the eye. One could argue that in his day the leaders were spending peoples money on high living, and owning too many chariots, as some have discussed VP's cars in our time , If it really was so important that we be warned of such things Jesus should have felt the need to talk about it in minute detail day after day . Sorry I don't see that happening in scripture. Apparently his concern was not with discussing their personal sins but with overall points of contrast. I see where he warned of specific things none personal in nature and then focused on a solution not the sins . To suggest that it in any way compares to gossiping about someone with no plan for resolve is foolish. It is not even close to the same thing. While having no internet in his day of course , I see no lengthy accounts of Jesus sitting in the temple and listing what every Scribe was doing or has done wrong in their life. who ,and how many times they had sex with, nor did I see him argue over every "the" they said looking for some twisted meaning. Apparently he did not think that was the way people needed to be warned. I'd agree.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
WD,
Kristen's sharing is her unique life's experience. She is sharing it to provide clarity, and help those that can benefit from it. She is not commenting on Pharisee's personal lives over and over day after day. The Pharisees attacked Jesus as a group, so he addressed them as a group. The sins of TWI leadership many times were individual offenses as opposed to group offenses. So responding in generalities to them as a group makes zero logical sense. The coverups of the individual sins were group efforts, so we can call them modern-day Pharisees, that strain at gnats and swallow camels, that tithe of mint and spices, but ignore the weightier matters in life, that need to learn what it means that God would have mercy and not sacrifice.
Pharisees typically didn't own too many chariots. They were the working-class religious zealots. The Saduccees were the ruling class.
If you'd take the time to look through the account in Matthew 23 rather than making vague generalizations about it, you could learn some great detail about what Jesus did think needed to be confronted.
With respect to handling individual sins publically especially of the sexual nature, you don't need to go much farther than Corinthians, in 1 Cor. 5:1 one individual is singled out for a sexual sin, and Paul's recommendation was to handle it and confront it publicly. This is not even a person with a leadership responsibility, yet it is to be brought up in an epistle meant to be read in all the churches, and with impact for generations to follow.
That is not gossip, that is not a lack of concern with personal sin and the impact it had on all the believers. That is confronting it, saying it's wrong, and handling it.
For you to state that Jesus would not want these things exposed or handled publicly, or that he would not want accounts like this to get out to warn people is a completely slanted view of what the scripture teaches, and it is one that is similar to the way TWI leadership handles these things, to discount them and sweep them under the carpet. It has taken legal action to change this, when in all honesty it should have been handled from a good moral Christian conscience. Yet that is the pattern - there is no good honest moral Christian conscience when it comes to TWI leadership.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i "get" jesus and kristen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
whitedove,
this is the 2nd time you have accused me of not wanting to address something or answer your questions...
yet. both times i have responded in detail, and you have completely ignored what i said...
methinks that you are the one who is avoiding things...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
chockfull,
thank you for your clear response...
and for pointing out the example of public exposure of individual sexual sin in 1st Cor 5...
peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Not really , You responded in detail about something else. You sent a list of books to read not an answer. after changing the subject from worship to shepherds to warning. None of which were original questions.
Your answer:
i don't have to "address" the scriptures... i completely agree with the scriptures and with matt. 4:10!!but then again, i don't have to try and make the scriptures fit like a "hand in a glove" with mathematical precision and scientific exactness...
Translated I believe the scriptures ,but can't show how they fit with my theories, nor do I feel the need to do so , they don't need to make sense just say, what I say, they say.
So I'll ask again where in scripture is it that Jesus ever has records where you see him by name day after day discussing the sins of an individual over and over again?
Do you really think shepherds just warn the sheep , Really what would be the point? What would sheep do about a warning do they understand language? Hey sheep wolf out there by the tree....... I'd say shepherds don't stand around talking about the wolf at all and what he does or did. I'd say they just fix the problem rather than standing around talking about the wolf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
No he didn't that is a usage of a generaric term "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" it does not address anyone in specific or their sins . There are none named by name and continually discussed. The point being address the wrong not rant about the individual involved.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Would you like another example , I think you get the point Jesus did not single out individuals and sins and discuss them day after day. He did not discuss exactly how Joe Scribe spent temple money or how or who Sam Pharisee slept with. he spoke of the general sin stealing or sexual sins only. You think he did, show me......... chapter and verse.
So exactly who was that he was addressing in 1 Cor. 5:1? Sorry I missed the name there?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Where exactly is it you see 'ranting about the individual involved' ??? This podcast is an individual's account.
There are individuals in the gospels who wronged Jesus - like Herod for example. Pauls talks about Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil.
As I stated before with the Pharisees, there were a group of them all together attacking Jesus to try and discount his healing people on the sabbath, not washing hands enough, hanging out with publicans and sinners. Since they were attacking all together, he addressed them as a group. You failed to address that point, and yet it's your main founding logic behind telling Kristen and all here that it's wrong to bring up an individual's sexual sins.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
No I am not saying Pharisees did not have individual sins. If you would actually read my posts, I have pointed out numerous times that Jesus addressed them as a group because they were criticizing him and attacking him as a group.
I do not get your point. You are ranting about someone singling out individuals and their sins and discussing them day after day, and how Jesus didn't do that. Is this an overall condemnation of all of GS? If that's how you feel, then don't let the door hit you where God split you on your way out of here.
Jesus dealt with individuals and their sins all the time. The man with the possessed kid trying to pin his believing on Jesus - his response - 'if you can believe, all things are possible'. Raising Lazurus from the dead - everyone criticizing him - he put every single one out of the room. The person criticizing the woman for wiping his feet with her hair - he confronted that sin right there. Even in his resurrected body he told Peter - what is it to you? when he asked about the disciple he loved. He most certainly singled out individuals, dealt with their sins, and if they were responsive helped teach and heal them. Even if they were not, like Judas Iscariot, he still dealt with him individually and publically, and the record is there for everyone to see. He healed a guard's ear after someone lopped it off, confronting that sin.
These examples are numerous and right off the top of my head. You seem to be the one that is trying to prove that Jesus did not single out individuals. So prove it - where is your chapter and verse?
While he doesn't name the name there, he names the report, and that the person is commonly known. He addresses ONE INDIVIDUAL, and that person would be very well known to anyone in the Corinth area involved in Paul's teachings.
You have some really stupid logic there, WD. By your logic, maybe courts shouldn't single out individuals who commit rape or talk about the rapists' sins day after day during their trial. Maybe trials should only deal with groups of people in general. Maybe there are no individuals that abuse, it's just society in general's problem. Maybe even your own stupid and intolerant logic is not really your fault - it's somehow some group's fault, whoever raised you, or taught you wrong, or whatever.
People who sexually abuse others in the name of God SHOULD be exposed, they SHOULD have people talking about their hypocrisy, and they SHOULD become famous for their deeds. Kind of like OJ Simpson.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I may regret posting here, but here goes nothing.
It's a juvenile assumption that ALL (don't even try that "exception or distinction?" BS on me - I'm not in the mood) of Jesus' words are recorded in four books. How do we know if he condemned Rabbi OyVey specifically or not? And if a person had been singled out, some mook would be complaining that that condemnation was so specific that it didn't apply today.
Also consider that he was dealing with primarily ONE religion - and maybe a few sects, and the Roman government along with the Gentile population. There is a theme of exposing religion as the life-sucking mind-numbing thing that it is.
Notice that in the OT there are specific condemnations. I'd say that there is a precedent that can be claimed here.
HERE at the GSC - the point is to deal with the issues of the cult that we all had in common. There is error in doctrine to be addressed, and then there are the individuals that taught that error and added to it with their evil practices which were taught by example. Not quite the same purpose as that put forth in the gospels - tho it is closely related.
Okay - back to your regularly scheduled program...
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
and that's why you have offered no scriptural support!
and yet, you refuse to read any scriptural support that backs up the position that shepherds do indeed WARN THE SHEEP!
btw, you ask "what would be the point?"... the point is: to protect the sheep!
it is also CLEAR that you do not understand the ANALOGY of the shepherd!whitedove, this is not referring to LITERAL sheep!
it is an analogy used to illuminate how Jesus (and pastors) are suppose to protect and guide PEOPLE!
i think that due to your obsession to protect your memories of twi and its leaders, you have failed to see what CLEAR scriptures say about wolves...
perhaps, you flat out reject the clear scriptures on this topic (i hope not) in favor of protecting your cherished memories...
but this is not an honest approach to scripture...
and of course, the logic of your argument is flawed as well (as chockfull has noted)...
i really have tried to see how people can be blinded to truth in this manner, but like i've said before, i can only come up with idolatry as the cause...
peace,
jen-o
p.s. doojable, heheheh... rabbi oyvey, eh?...
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
any discussions ever go on about perverts without scripture coming into it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
excie,
you shouldn't have to need a scripture to be able to say: xyz was a pervert... or xyz committed perverted acts...
but when certain people try to shut down a discussion... that consists of the exposure of perverted acts... which have been committed by someone that they have evidently elevated and esteemed highly... and when these certain people try to shut it down by hiding behind their own private interpretation of the bible... while claiming that it is both unnecessary and unbiblical to talk about these "sins" (i.e. perverted acts),... then it becomes necessary to speak up for the truth that it IS indeed BIBLICAL to expose these sinful, perverted acts...
[dang that was a long sentence... so i went back and put the dots in to chunk the thoughts... LOL]
anyway, you shouldn't have to defend your right to expose evil like this... and this is the first time i have ever seen anyone try to hide behind the bible in order to protect a pervert and cover up his criminal acts...
peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
thank you dear jeno
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
your welcome, dear excie... :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
oh, and whitedove, that was a list of current watchmen and their websites...haven't you learned to read what's written?
all you have to do is click on a website... and check out what watchmen do...
no books to read, no books to buy!
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
arizona
Wow, I head the interview. VP always taught from the get go that we stand approved before God and that all men are liars and I never heard him remove himself.
This booksalesperson shared a very juicy protion fo her book and I am not buying. Why didn't you ask just what she expected when she entered his motorcoach? What a joke and where is her spirituality now? Psychology?
Sounds like more of the Dubofsky deal. Oh these poor victims.
Liven Large
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Arizona
Perhaps you can clarify for me.
Are you saying it is her own fault that she became one of VPW's victims?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
Why didn't you ask just what she expected when she entered his motorcoach? What a joke and where is her spirituality now? Psychology?
Sounds like more of the Dubofsky deal. Oh these poor victims.
Liven Large
WTF?!??
She, or anyone. else was to expect a pervert masquerading as the MANOGAWD O' THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD?????
Are you on drugs??
Seriously, what was one to expect of THE TEACHER?? Take off your clothes and get on your knees???
WTF?????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
yeah, Arizona,
We've all heard your particular song before.
Gee, you're just the epitome of compassion, no?
Yeah, anybody should EXPECT to get raped and abused if they meet up with a MOG, now shouldn't they? And if they don't, then they get what's coming to 'em, right? :blink:
Edited by George AarLink to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Arizona, are you going to be another VPW defender that I am going to have to place ignore? Interesting, if Wierwille had been homosexual pedophile and rapist to Craig, Chris, Mike, OM,WD, Jonitham, and Arizona, and they were complaing about abuse here on Greasespot, and the women had scorned them saying"But he taught the Word perfectly, not known since Jesus, Peter, and Paul" accusing them of lying and defamation of the Man of God, Would they be furious for no one believing them? Just wanted to put them in Kris' shoes and feel the heat and rejection.
Edited by Thomas Loy BumgarnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
If all men are liars, how can you believe anything he said, including the "word" that he taught? It's like the old riddle - Everything A says is a lie... so if A says B is lying.... it gets silly if you try to take it literally. When the Bible says "all men are liars" it obviously doesn't mean EVERYTHING that anyone says is lie. VP himself taught about the difference between "all without exception" and "all with distinction." But when a person puts himself in front of people and claims to be a "man of God" then it is not unreasonable to expect counselling when you go to him for help.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites