One of the recurring battles here at the ol' cafe features a disagreement between those who assign responsibility for certain woes that befell us to Wierwille and his subordinates and those who feel that each individual is completely responsible for anything that happened to them.
It is my position that in most cases we are responsible for how we think and act, and we decide how we will respond to people who treat us wrongly. (Watch for this sentence to be taken out of context to support an opposing opinion!)
It is also my position that this kind of discussion gets pushed into a false dilemma: TWI and its leaders are totally responsible for our problems or we are totally responsible for our problems. A third alternative is that although we decided to stick with a group that was in many cases abusive, the leaders of TWI were wrong to take advantage of the position that we put ourselves in.
The emphasis should not be on whether Wierwille, Martindale or Joe Corps Grad was responsible for our mental state, or the problems that we encountered, but whether the actions that they took were ethical or not.
The way I see it, abusive leaders saw that there were people who, for one reason or another, were willing to put up with whatever level of abuse they were subject to in exchange for what they perceived were benefits: being part of "the household", having access to "the Word like it wasn't known since the 1st century", or whatever other reason people had for putting up with b.s. - Those leaders then took advantage of those people who had put themselves in that position by abusing them.
The emphasis should not be on whether those abused people could have theoretically walked away, or spoken up, but should be on those "leaders" who acted unethically and unbiblically when they knew that they had some people by the b@lls.
It is a distraction to attempt to turn the spotlight back on those who feel victimized or abused. The spotlight should instead be on the perpetrators.
I disagree if one wants to lay blame lets dish it it out to all parties involved in a fair and balanced manor, why should either responsible party get off? Nope If you want to open that can of worms then let all involved eat the contents.
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
First the obvious I don't live in the Old Testament
yep, just keep chopping up and dissecting the bible like a good little wafer...
isn't that what you were taught?: that whole chunks of the Word of God just don't apply to you...
in fact, what DOES apply to you?...
i know vpw taught that the old testament and the gospels did not...
and he didn't know a thing about the book of revelation...
so what's left?
the 7 church epistles AND a whole lot of vpw's OPINION... (well, that's gonna get you far)
So do we pray to and wave at Peter as well?
keep mocking, whitedove...
you think God is gonna praise you for your continual mocking of Jesus...
(what a rude awakening you are gonna have)
Yep at some point every knee will bow
every knee will bow TO JESUS, whitedove...
how dense can you be?
(and are you just ignoring all the verses in the gospels regarding worship of Jesus??)
oops, i forgot; the gospels don't apply to you...
just pick and choose the scriptures you like (or did vpw pick them for you?)
and then there will some splaining to do exactly why some choose to worship other God's (sic)
indeed, there will definitely be some splaining to do when people have to explain why they chose to worship vpw and his organization of doctrinal error and disgusting practices instead of Jesus the Messiah...
you think God is gonna praise you for that?... that you chose a lecherous old man and his organization over His Son...
yep, just keep chopping up and dissecting the bible like a good little wafer...
isn't that what you were taught?: that whole chunks of the Word of God just don't apply to you...
in fact, what DOES apply to you?...
i know vpw taught that the old testament and the gospels did not...
and he didn't know a thing about the book of revelation...
so what's left?
the 7 church epistles AND a whole lot of vpw's OPINION... (well, that's gonna get you far)
keep mocking, whitedove...
you think God is gonna praise you for your continual mocking of Jesus...
(what a rude awakening you are gonna have)
So I gues you have no answer to what the scripture says when it says- Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
every knee will bow TO JESUS, whitedove...
how dense can you be?
(and are you just ignoring all the verses in the gospels regarding worship of Jesus??)
oops, i forgot; the gospels don't apply to you...
just pick and choose the scriptures you like (or did vpw pick them for you?)
indeed, there will definitely be some splaining to do when people have to explain why they chose to worship vpw and his organization of doctrinal error and disgusting practices instead of Jesus the Messiah...
you think God is gonna praise you for that?... that you chose a lecherous old man and his organization over His Son...
You assume too much Jeno , just when did I say I worshiped VPW or his orginization? I'll wait for you to find that post. But then again Christ will come back before then, no doubt waving if you have anything to do with it . So will we all do the wave like at the sports games in unison? Glad you won't be in charge of the event.......
A quick check of the word worship proskun tells us it is" to kiss the hand
strong's says more than that..
however, are you telling me that your refusal to worship Jesus includes this definition of "kiss the hand"?...
in other words, you don't think that Jesus deserves "the kiss of your hand"?!?
wow, whitedove, that's just incredible that you would admit that Jesus does not deserve the 'kiss the hand" worship (as noted by the definition you provided)
you really think you know Jesus, huh?
(or do you just use his name as a tagline at the end of a prayer with the intent of getting whatever you want... because afterall, you fulfilled the twi rule/requirement of adding "in the name of Jesus Christ" to the end of your prayer and now God HAS to do whatever you say (in your mind anyway)...
yeah right, you know Jesus real well...
"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." (matt. 10:33)
i really don't know what your point is, whitedove, about the word "proskuneo" (verb form)
the word "proskuneo" is used for BOTH worship of God the Father AND worship of Jesus...
as in john 4:23:
"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers (proskunetes) shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship (proskuneo) him."
you think these "worshippers" are just kissing God's hand??
in any case, what's your point?
the scriptures show God receiving "proskuneo" worship...
AND
the scriptures show Jesus receiving "proskuneo" worship
you say you worship God, but you deny the worship of His Son...
how can you possibly know the Father if you don't know the Son?
however, are you telling me that your refusal to worship Jesus includes this definition of "kiss the hand"?...
in other words, you don't think that Jesus deserves "the kiss of your hand"?!?
wow, whitedove, that's just incredible that you would admit that Jesus does not deserve the 'kiss the hand" worship (as noted by the definition you provided)
you really think you know Jesus, huh?
(or do you just use his name as a tagline at the end of a prayer with the intent of getting whatever you want... because afterall, you fulfilled the twi rule/requirement of adding "in the name of Jesus Christ" to the end of your prayer and now God HAS to do whatever you say (in your mind anyway)...
yeah right, you KNOW Jesus real well...
"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." (matt. 10:33)
i really don't know what your point is, whitedove, about the word "proskuneo" (verb form)
the word "proskuneo" is used for BOTH worship of the God the Father AND worship of Jesus...
as in john 4:23:
"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers (proskunetes) shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship (proskuneo) him."
you think these "worshippers" are just kissing God's hand??
in any case, what's your point?
the scriptures show God receiving "proskuneo" worship...
AND
the scriptures show Jesus receiving "proskuneo" worship
you say you worship God, but you deny the worship of His Son...
how can you possibly know the Father if you don't know the Son?
The point is clear I guess you don't want to address what the scriptures say like
Matthew 4:10 - Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Or the fact that worship (the same word ) is used for Peter, which means logically if it is the same word used the same way then you would also worship and pray to him as well. That should tell you that something is wrong with your theory.
the scriptures show God receiving "proskuneo" worship...
AND
the scriptures show Jesus receiving "proskuneo" worship
And as I pointed out it was not requested by Jesus, in fact it was discouraged. People are religious then and now. Hey I bet the devil gets a few hand kisses now and then as well so do we include him in your group just because someone worships him the same way?
you say you worship God, but you deny the worship of His Son...
how can you possibly know the Father if you don't know the Son?
Right ,just as he himself told us to, he was pretty clear on the proper order.
So let me get this straight you know Jesus but refuse to do what he asked you to do. You have a better plan.
By the way one can know Jesus without waving at them or worshiping them.
I disagree if one wants to lay blame lets dish it it out to all parties involved in a fair and balanced manor, why should either responsible party get off? Nope If you want to open that can of worms then let all involved eat the contents.
Man, you were busy last night!
I think you miss my point.
I'm not talking about blame. I'm talking about emphasis
It is also my position that this kind of discussion gets pushed into a false dilemma: TWI and its leaders are totally responsible for our problems or we are totally responsible for our problems. A third alternative is that although we decided to stick with a group that was in many cases abusive, the leaders of TWI were wrong to take advantage of the position that we put ourselves in.
The emphasis should not be on whether Wierwille, Martindale or Joe Corps Grad was responsible for our mental state, or the problems that we encountered, but whether the actions that they took were ethical or not.
When it is pointed out that a TWI leader, Wierwille included, abused his flock in some manner, it is nothing but a distraction to point at others.
The question is, was a specific action of Wierwille's ethical, moral, godly, biblical, or wasn't it? The fact that young women for whatever reason agreed to have sex with him doesn't make him any less an adulterer. The fact that many people chose to stick around in the face of abuse doesn't make the abuse okay.
oldiesman after reading what you said to sunesis, i will never look at you the same way. i think i said something like that recently, i just didn't know i could feel even more strongly about it, but i do
Golly, I hope this isn't Genuine Spiritual Suspicion at work. :o To have a strong feeling based on one post seems ridiculous. I'm getting weary of answering all the nutty questions directed toward me, but ex you can PM me anytime if you ever want to talk things over privately. You may want to further explore whether that feeling is correct or incorrect.
I'm not talking about blame. I'm talking about emphasis
The emphasis should not be on whether Wierwille, Martindale or Joe Corps Grad was responsible for our mental state, or the problems that we encountered, but whether the actions that they took were ethical or not.
When it is pointed out that a TWI leader, Wierwille included, abused his flock in some manner, it is nothing but a distraction to point at others.
The question is, was a specific action of Wierwille's ethical, moral, godly, biblical, or wasn't it? The fact that young women for whatever reason agreed to have sex with him doesn't make him any less an adulterer. The fact that many people chose to stick around in the face of abuse doesn't make the abuse okay.
It's a fine line between emphasis and blame, actually though as I read your quote it appears you are talking about responsibility
It is also my position that this kind of discussion gets pushed into a false dilemma: TWI and its leaders are totally responsible for our problems or we are totally responsible for our problems. A third alternative is that although we decided to stick with a group that was in many cases abusive, the leaders of TWI were wrong to take advantage of the position that we put ourselves in.
Not that I'm one to point out what words mean or anything But since you brought it up.......
re·spon·si·bil·i·ty
–noun, plural -ties. 1. the state or fact of being responsible.
2. an instance of being responsible: The responsibility for this mess is yours! 3. a particular burden of obligation upon one who is responsible: the responsibilities of authority.
4. a person or thing for which one is responsible: A child is a responsibility to its parents.
5. reliability or dependability, esp. in meeting debts or payments.
—Idiom6. on one's own responsibility, on one's own initiative or authority: He changed the order on his own responsibility
I'll revise my quote accordingly
I disagree ,if one wants to point out responsibility lets dish it it out to all parties involved in a fair and balanced manor, why should either responsible party get off? Nope If you want to open that can of worms then let all involved eat the contents.
So if one is pointing out the "responsibility for the mess" then lets include all responsible parties.
I can live with your third option
A third alternative is that although we decided to stick with a group that was in many cases abusive, the leaders of TWI were wrong to take advantage of the position that we put ourselves in.
The emphasis should not be on whether those abused people could have theoretically walked away, or spoken up, but should be on those "leaders" who acted unethically and unbiblically when they knew that they had some people by the b@lls.
That's the theme of the website, exposing the evils of twi. The emphasis already is on that. But if pro-Wierwille/twi spin isn't tolerated in the forums, what's left is possible twi-like censorship (i.e., there are some things you can't discuss and if you don't like it, leave). I'm not talking about being vulgar, heartless and disrespectful in posting, that's a given not to do; I'm talking about a legitimate opinion that, because it is construed by the owner of the website as offensive to victims' feelings, it is censored out.
Respectful free speech is always the best way to go. The pro-Wierwille/twi spin here at GS are probably outnumbered 10 to 1 or more by the anti-Wierwille/twi spin. There's nothing to be afraid of, in my judgment.
I have now added White Dove to my ignore list. Sorry WD, I thought we had some friendship between us, especially on music. I was going to apologize for including you with Mike and OM, but your attitude shows your immaturity. By the way, Jeno and Bride are correct on worship. It means worthiness, respect, honor, admiration, value, price, reverance, dignity.
A third alternative is that although we decided to stick with a group that was in many cases abusive, the leaders of TWI were wrong to take advantage of the position that we put ourselves in.
Would the same be true of a woman who is raped while walking through the park? She was responsible for what happened to her because she chose to go to the park?...or maybe it's a "shared blame"? He was wrong to rape the woman and she was wrong to put herself in that position?
...or perhaps the guy who was mugged when he walked out of the building towards his parked car?...he didn't have to park his car where he did...he thought it was safe and made the decision to park it there...was it his own fault that he was mugged?
...Your logic falls flat and fails to pass the smell test.
There is a certain "logic" that WhiteDove and OM both promulgate...it is also promulgated by the "Momentus" folks and by certain others that John Lynn has endorsed in the past. This so-called logic deals with the concept of eliminating the "victim mentality"...The problem with it is that it denies the reality that there ARE victims in this life...bad things DO happen to others through no fault of their own.
Attempting to place the blame, even in part, on the victim's of twi is nothing short of complicity in minimilizing the evil that was done by the guilty...and the harm that they alone are responsible for.
Did anyone hold a gun to their heads?...Of course not. When a person falls into a world of "group think mentality" via a cult, a gun pointed at the head is usually not necessary to enforce compliance. I think that the psychological state of mind of people involved deeply with cults renders them into a very vulnerable position and I think that it's self evident... and only people who have "other agendas" fail to recognize the obvious.
I'm talking about a legitimate opinion that, because it is construed by the owner of the website as offensive to victims' feelings, it is censored out.
Respectful free speech is always the best way to go. The pro-Wierwille/twi spin here at GS are probably outnumbered 10 to 1 or more by the anti-Wierwille/twi spin. There's nothing to be afraid of, in my judgment
I suppose if the pro wierwille spin folks could voice their opinions without having to accuse everyone whom experienced differently as liars or perpetually whining victims, or exaggerating to make a point, or could make thier points without minimalizing anothers experience or pain...or wouldn`t pull people`s posts out of context to twist them into meaning that the author never intended in order to support an unrelated point...or pick fights in order to bury important first hand testyimoney under pages of fighting in the soap opera basement......or any other number of dishonest attempts to discredit a poster, their point of view or their experience....MAYBE....the wierwille supporters wouldn`t be under fire.
The thing is...when you have to stoop to these methods to get your point across...when you have to hurt, to discredit, to attack the veracity and integrity of a supposed brother or sister in Christ....what does that say about you as a christian? What does that say about your beliefs? The thing that I notice in ANY of you guys.... is a complete lack of empathy or consideration for anyone whom doesn`t share your pov.
Man, you have to ask yourself......What good do all of those research skills do you if you miss the very most basic and fundamental premiss of Christian beliefs?? What kind of moral compass did you develope under the teachings and studies promoted in twi?
Apparently what one learns in twi is how to excuse ones self from behaving with character and integrity.
That's the theme of the website, exposing the evils of twi. The emphasis already is on that. But if pro-Wierwille/twi spin isn't tolerated in the forums, what's left is possible twi-like censorship (i.e., there are some things you can't discuss and if you don't
Not really...If the government were to order the owner of this website to eliminate pro-Wierwiile posts, THAT would be censorship...If the owner himself decides to eliminate pro-Qierwille posts, it's called programming.
The GreaseSpot Cafe is not a democracy...it's a privately owned establishment. Even as a radio station owner can program the kind of music he wants to play...and thus, eliminate other kinds...the same is also true here.
You may disagree with a decision...but it's certainly not censorship.
...Personally, I wouldn't want to see all pro-Wierwille posts to be eliminated...extreme callousness and disregard for the majority of posters here?...perhaps.
...but not all pro-Wierwiile posts!...When I see a pro-Wierwille post, it's like seeing the guy stick his head through the hole in the wall at the carnival...I can't help but pick up a few tomatoes and start throwing them...
Not really...If the government were to order the owner of this website to eliminate pro-Wierwiile posts, THAT would be censorship...If the owner himself decides to eliminate pro-Qierwille posts, it's called programming.
Call it what you want but censorship can happen by non-governmental entities. Look it up. Here's the first sentence in wikipedia:
"Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor."
In post #189 you are quoting White Dove, who is actually quoting me. Scroll up to the post that he's quoting for the full context of my point.
My point is that the emphasis should be on Wierwille's (and other TWI leaders') behavior, not on to what degree, if any, those who he screwed over were responsible for the screwing. Theoretically women who had sex with Werwille (unless drugged) could have said no, theoretically those who didn't like what was going on could have walked away...but so what? It was okay for a married minsiter to have sex with a woman who wasn't his wife if she was consenting? It was okay for ministers to verbally abuse, lie to and whatever else as long as the abused didn't walk away?
I'm getting weary of answering all the nutty questions directed toward me,
That's the theme of the website, exposing the evils of twi. The emphasis already is on that.
Until posters like you attempt to change the emphasis from the founder and longtime leader of TWI to those he screwed over. I think that your change of emphasis is wrong. In other words, I disagree with your opinion that the spotlight should be shifted.
But if pro-Wierwille/twi spin isn't tolerated in the forums, what's left is possible twi-like censorship (i.e., there are some things you can't discuss and if you don't like it, leave). I'm not talking about being vulgar, heartless and disrespectful in posting, that's a given not to do; I'm talking about a legitimate opinion that, because it is construed by the owner of the website as offensive to victims' feelings, it is censored out.
Are you talking hypothetically, or do you think that censorship is being advocated? If so, I must have missed something. I'm certainly not advocating intolerance of viewpoints that I disagree with.
Respectful free speech is always the best way to go. The pro-Wierwille/twi spin here at GS are probably outnumbered 10 to 1 or more by the anti-Wierwille/twi spin. There's nothing to be afraid of, in my judgment.
I'm not afraid. I disagree with what you say most of the time. I wouldn't think of eliminating your opinion, but think that it is wrongheaded at the very least.
Are you talking hypothetically, or do you think that censorship is being advocated? If so, I must have missed something. I'm certainly not advocating intolerance of viewpoints that I disagree with.
I honestly don't know yet, guess it all depends on if Pawtucket chooses to enforce what he posted on Friday, and how. But his statement could possibly be taken that way:
I am not going to tolerate someone diminishing, denying or belittling the pain of another. Disagree all you want, but you don't have the right to miscategorize or spin someone's pain.
Pro-Wierwille/twi spin could possibly be construed as the above, when it wasn't ever intended that way. Personally I think that it would be a mistake to censor anything out, but I'm not the one to make that final decision.
I have now added White Dove to my ignore list. Sorry WD, I thought we had some friendship between us, especially on music. I was going to apologize for including you with Mike and OM, but your attitude shows your immaturity. By the way, Jeno and Bride are correct on worship. It means worthiness, respect, honor, admiration, value, price, reverance, dignity.
Thomas
I have no quarrel with you , as long as you don't speak about things you don't know about me. You can ignore me if you like ,if that is how you deal with things that challenge your belief system. Personally I don't ignore anyone I like to consider their ideas . I may end up discarding them but at least I do consider them. I haven't forgot about your CD's I'll send them along shortly. If you don't read this I suppose you'll figure it out when they arrive at your door.
Would the same be true of a woman who is raped while walking through the park? She was responsible for what happened to her because she chose to go to the park?...or maybe it's a "shared blame"? He was wrong to rape the woman and she was wrong to put herself in that position?
...or perhaps the guy who was mugged when he walked out of the building towards his parked car?...he didn't have to park his car where he did...he thought it was safe and made the decision to park it there...was it his own fault that he was mugged?
...Your logic falls flat and fails to pass the smell test.
There is a certain "logic" that WhiteDove and OM both promulgate...it is also promulgated by the "Momentus" folks and by certain others that John Lynn has endorsed in the past. This so-called logic deals with the concept of eliminating the "victim mentality"...The problem with it is that it denies the reality that there ARE victims in this life...bad things DO happen to others through no fault of their own.
Attempting to place the blame, even in part, on the victim's of twi is nothing short of complicity in minimilizing the evil that was done by the guilty...and the harm that they alone are responsible for.
Did anyone hold a gun to their heads?...Of course not. When a person falls into a world of "group think mentality" via a cult, a gun pointed at the head is usually not necessary to enforce compliance. I think that the psychological state of mind of people involved deeply with cults renders them into a very vulnerable position and I think that it's self evident... and only people who have "other agendas" fail to recognize the obvious.
Had you read the post you would see it was not my logic but my northern neighbor Oakspear who offered that , I simply agreed with his option. You would have to ask him your questions He's a big boy and very articulate I bet he will answer for himself.
Oldies, if you have "genuine spiritual suspicion" I am gay, as you insinuated in your response to me - think what you want. I could care less what you think. We all know where the "genuine spiritual suspicion" went - it was pathetic.
You have accused me of something.
Did I go running to the moderator to "report" you? No.
You just aren't worth my time.
But I did catch it. Don't think I didn't notice it. But I don't go running and whining to the mods like you do.
What a whiny little hypocrite you are, you go running to the mods when you feel "attacked," yet, you do the same thing to others, insinuate and attack and expect to be given a free pass.
Go ahead, use your "genuine spiritual suspicion" on the folks here.
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
I disagree if one wants to lay blame lets dish it it out to all parties involved in a fair and balanced manor, why should either responsible party get off? Nope If you want to open that can of worms then let all involved eat the contents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Yep !!!!!
Genesis 4
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
isn't that what you were taught?: that whole chunks of the Word of God just don't apply to you...
in fact, what DOES apply to you?...
i know vpw taught that the old testament and the gospels did not...
and he didn't know a thing about the book of revelation...
so what's left?
the 7 church epistles AND a whole lot of vpw's OPINION... (well, that's gonna get you far)
keep mocking, whitedove...
you think God is gonna praise you for your continual mocking of Jesus...
(what a rude awakening you are gonna have)
every knee will bow TO JESUS, whitedove...how dense can you be?
(and are you just ignoring all the verses in the gospels regarding worship of Jesus??)
oops, i forgot; the gospels don't apply to you...
just pick and choose the scriptures you like (or did vpw pick them for you?)
indeed, there will definitely be some splaining to do when people have to explain why they chose to worship vpw and his organization of doctrinal error and disgusting practices instead of Jesus the Messiah...
you think God is gonna praise you for that?... that you chose a lecherous old man and his organization over His Son...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
strong's says more than that..
however, are you telling me that your refusal to worship Jesus includes this definition of "kiss the hand"?...
in other words, you don't think that Jesus deserves "the kiss of your hand"?!?
wow, whitedove, that's just incredible that you would admit that Jesus does not deserve the 'kiss the hand" worship (as noted by the definition you provided)
you really think you know Jesus, huh?
(or do you just use his name as a tagline at the end of a prayer with the intent of getting whatever you want... because afterall, you fulfilled the twi rule/requirement of adding "in the name of Jesus Christ" to the end of your prayer and now God HAS to do whatever you say (in your mind anyway)...
yeah right, you know Jesus real well...
"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." (matt. 10:33)
i really don't know what your point is, whitedove, about the word "proskuneo" (verb form)
the word "proskuneo" is used for BOTH worship of God the Father AND worship of Jesus...
as in john 4:23:
"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers (proskunetes) shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship (proskuneo) him."
you think these "worshippers" are just kissing God's hand??
in any case, what's your point?
the scriptures show God receiving "proskuneo" worship...
AND
the scriptures show Jesus receiving "proskuneo" worship
you say you worship God, but you deny the worship of His Son...
how can you possibly know the Father if you don't know the Son?
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Man, this sure is a round about way of debating the old (Way) issue of whether Jesus Christ is God or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
The point is clear I guess you don't want to address what the scriptures say like
Matthew 4:10 - Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Or the fact that worship (the same word ) is used for Peter, which means logically if it is the same word used the same way then you would also worship and pray to him as well. That should tell you that something is wrong with your theory.
And as I pointed out it was not requested by Jesus, in fact it was discouraged. People are religious then and now. Hey I bet the devil gets a few hand kisses now and then as well so do we include him in your group just because someone worships him the same way?Right ,just as he himself told us to, he was pretty clear on the proper order.
So let me get this straight you know Jesus but refuse to do what he asked you to do. You have a better plan.
By the way one can know Jesus without waving at them or worshiping them.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I think you miss my point.
I'm not talking about blame. I'm talking about emphasis
The emphasis should not be on whether Wierwille, Martindale or Joe Corps Grad was responsible for our mental state, or the problems that we encountered, but whether the actions that they took were ethical or not.
When it is pointed out that a TWI leader, Wierwille included, abused his flock in some manner, it is nothing but a distraction to point at others.
The question is, was a specific action of Wierwille's ethical, moral, godly, biblical, or wasn't it? The fact that young women for whatever reason agreed to have sex with him doesn't make him any less an adulterer. The fact that many people chose to stick around in the face of abuse doesn't make the abuse okay.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Golly, I hope this isn't Genuine Spiritual Suspicion at work. :o To have a strong feeling based on one post seems ridiculous. I'm getting weary of answering all the nutty questions directed toward me, but ex you can PM me anytime if you ever want to talk things over privately. You may want to further explore whether that feeling is correct or incorrect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
It's a fine line between emphasis and blame, actually though as I read your quote it appears you are talking about responsibility
It is also my position that this kind of discussion gets pushed into a false dilemma: TWI and its leaders are totally responsible for our problems or we are totally responsible for our problems. A third alternative is that although we decided to stick with a group that was in many cases abusive, the leaders of TWI were wrong to take advantage of the position that we put ourselves in.
Not that I'm one to point out what words mean or anything
But since you brought it up.......
re·spon·si·bil·i·ty
–noun, plural -ties. 1. the state or fact of being responsible.
2. an instance of being responsible: The responsibility for this mess is yours! 3. a particular burden of obligation upon one who is responsible: the responsibilities of authority.
4. a person or thing for which one is responsible: A child is a responsibility to its parents.
5. reliability or dependability, esp. in meeting debts or payments.
—Idiom6. on one's own responsibility, on one's own initiative or authority: He changed the order on his own responsibility
I'll revise my quote accordingly
So if one is pointing out the "responsibility for the mess" then lets include all responsible parties.I can live with your third option
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
That's the theme of the website, exposing the evils of twi. The emphasis already is on that. But if pro-Wierwille/twi spin isn't tolerated in the forums, what's left is possible twi-like censorship (i.e., there are some things you can't discuss and if you don't like it, leave). I'm not talking about being vulgar, heartless and disrespectful in posting, that's a given not to do; I'm talking about a legitimate opinion that, because it is construed by the owner of the website as offensive to victims' feelings, it is censored out.
Respectful free speech is always the best way to go. The pro-Wierwille/twi spin here at GS are probably outnumbered 10 to 1 or more by the anti-Wierwille/twi spin. There's nothing to be afraid of, in my judgment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
I have now added White Dove to my ignore list. Sorry WD, I thought we had some friendship between us, especially on music. I was going to apologize for including you with Mike and OM, but your attitude shows your immaturity. By the way, Jeno and Bride are correct on worship. It means worthiness, respect, honor, admiration, value, price, reverance, dignity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Would the same be true of a woman who is raped while walking through the park? She was responsible for what happened to her because she chose to go to the park?...or maybe it's a "shared blame"? He was wrong to rape the woman and she was wrong to put herself in that position?
...or perhaps the guy who was mugged when he walked out of the building towards his parked car?...he didn't have to park his car where he did...he thought it was safe and made the decision to park it there...was it his own fault that he was mugged?
...Your logic falls flat and fails to pass the smell test.
There is a certain "logic" that WhiteDove and OM both promulgate...it is also promulgated by the "Momentus" folks and by certain others that John Lynn has endorsed in the past. This so-called logic deals with the concept of eliminating the "victim mentality"...The problem with it is that it denies the reality that there ARE victims in this life...bad things DO happen to others through no fault of their own.
Attempting to place the blame, even in part, on the victim's of twi is nothing short of complicity in minimilizing the evil that was done by the guilty...and the harm that they alone are responsible for.
Did anyone hold a gun to their heads?...Of course not. When a person falls into a world of "group think mentality" via a cult, a gun pointed at the head is usually not necessary to enforce compliance. I think that the psychological state of mind of people involved deeply with cults renders them into a very vulnerable position and I think that it's self evident... and only people who have "other agendas" fail to recognize the obvious.
...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I suppose if the pro wierwille spin folks could voice their opinions without having to accuse everyone whom experienced differently as liars or perpetually whining victims, or exaggerating to make a point, or could make thier points without minimalizing anothers experience or pain...or wouldn`t pull people`s posts out of context to twist them into meaning that the author never intended in order to support an unrelated point...or pick fights in order to bury important first hand testyimoney under pages of fighting in the soap opera basement......or any other number of dishonest attempts to discredit a poster, their point of view or their experience....MAYBE....the wierwille supporters wouldn`t be under fire.
The thing is...when you have to stoop to these methods to get your point across...when you have to hurt, to discredit, to attack the veracity and integrity of a supposed brother or sister in Christ....what does that say about you as a christian? What does that say about your beliefs? The thing that I notice in ANY of you guys.... is a complete lack of empathy or consideration for anyone whom doesn`t share your pov.
Man, you have to ask yourself......What good do all of those research skills do you if you miss the very most basic and fundamental premiss of Christian beliefs?? What kind of moral compass did you develope under the teachings and studies promoted in twi?
Apparently what one learns in twi is how to excuse ones self from behaving with character and integrity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Not really...If the government were to order the owner of this website to eliminate pro-Wierwiile posts, THAT would be censorship...If the owner himself decides to eliminate pro-Qierwille posts, it's called programming.
The GreaseSpot Cafe is not a democracy...it's a privately owned establishment. Even as a radio station owner can program the kind of music he wants to play...and thus, eliminate other kinds...the same is also true here.
You may disagree with a decision...but it's certainly not censorship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...and furthermore... :) ...
...Personally, I wouldn't want to see all pro-Wierwille posts to be eliminated...extreme callousness and disregard for the majority of posters here?...perhaps.
...but not all pro-Wierwiile posts!...When I see a pro-Wierwille post, it's like seeing the guy stick his head through the hole in the wall at the carnival...I can't help but pick up a few tomatoes and start throwing them...
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Call it what you want but censorship can happen by non-governmental entities. Look it up. Here's the first sentence in wikipedia:
"Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Groucho:
In post #189 you are quoting White Dove, who is actually quoting me. Scroll up to the post that he's quoting for the full context of my point.
My point is that the emphasis should be on Wierwille's (and other TWI leaders') behavior, not on to what degree, if any, those who he screwed over were responsible for the screwing. Theoretically women who had sex with Werwille (unless drugged) could have said no, theoretically those who didn't like what was going on could have walked away...but so what? It was okay for a married minsiter to have sex with a woman who wasn't his wife if she was consenting? It was okay for ministers to verbally abuse, lie to and whatever else as long as the abused didn't walk away?
Nutty questions!?! Is that a personal attack?Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I honestly don't know yet, guess it all depends on if Pawtucket chooses to enforce what he posted on Friday, and how. But his statement could possibly be taken that way:
Pro-Wierwille/twi spin could possibly be construed as the above, when it wasn't ever intended that way. Personally I think that it would be a mistake to censor anything out, but I'm not the one to make that final decision.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I guess Pawtucket can speak for himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Thomas
I have no quarrel with you , as long as you don't speak about things you don't know about me. You can ignore me if you like ,if that is how you deal with things that challenge your belief system. Personally I don't ignore anyone I like to consider their ideas . I may end up discarding them but at least I do consider them. I haven't forgot about your CD's I'll send them along shortly. If you don't read this I suppose you'll figure it out when they arrive at your door.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Had you read the post you would see it was not my logic but my northern neighbor Oakspear who offered that , I simply agreed with his option. You would have to ask him your questions He's a big boy and very articulate I bet he will answer for himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Oldies, if you have "genuine spiritual suspicion" I am gay, as you insinuated in your response to me - think what you want. I could care less what you think. We all know where the "genuine spiritual suspicion" went - it was pathetic.
You have accused me of something.
Did I go running to the moderator to "report" you? No.
You just aren't worth my time.
But I did catch it. Don't think I didn't notice it. But I don't go running and whining to the mods like you do.
What a whiny little hypocrite you are, you go running to the mods when you feel "attacked," yet, you do the same thing to others, insinuate and attack and expect to be given a free pass.
Go ahead, use your "genuine spiritual suspicion" on the folks here.
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites