And for the record, since I deleted the text of my posts earlier, Bumgarner had COMPLETELY mistaken my views.
I NEVER sympathized with Oldiesman, nor attempted to justify ANYTHING that Wierwille (the grandfather) did regarding the sexual abuse of young women. NEVER.
White Dove, thanks. I want to apologize to all the posters here. I ended up as bad as VPW, CG, and LCM with my outburst of anger. Already wrote to Pawtuckett expressing my shame for immaturity. Tried to be a knight in shining armor. At least I asked for forgiveness, something TWI never did. After hearing Ralph D's interview and what I took as OM's "attack" on Rascal, well that was the final straw that broke the camel's back. BTW, OM, WTH, MIke are now on my ignore button when they post. As I have said many times, I am struggling with my "Cult Addiction" and GSC is like a theraputic AA/NA group. Usually I am calm and not preturbed. .
White Dove, thanks. I want to apologize to all the posters here. I ended up as bad as VPW, CG, and LCM with my outburst of anger. Already wrote to Pawtuckett expressing my shame for immaturity. Tried to be a knight in shining armor. At least I asked for forgiveness, something TWI never did. After hearing Ralph D's interview and what I took as OM's "attack" on Rascal, well that was the final straw that broke the camel's back. BTW, OM, WTH, MIke are now on my ignore button when they post. As I have said many times, I am struggling with my "Cult Addiction" and GSC is like a theraputic AA/NA group. Usually I am calm and not preturbed. .
You did NOT acknowledge your misguided characterization of my views.
As this thread is about the TWI doctrine concerning how all the women in the kingdom belong to the king it seems that some emotion will inevitably be stirred up. In one of my first discussions on this site I went overboard in anger and attacked a few posters many times. After being warned by a moderator I posted an apology for everyone to read.
Because of those events I'm now focussing on things that I may be able to say that would actually help people. I find that on certain issues the emotions will still rise to the surface and I'm hoping that if they do that they are as justified as they were when a certain king threw certain vendors out of the temple. I'm not the final judge, I believe He is.
As this isn't a religious site I ask for all of you to be patient with me if you don't hold the same views I do concerning the bible, but I ask you to look at the principles behind the scriptures that I may share and on my part I will give full consideration to whatever points you all may make.
Dear Oldiesman, (regarding post #92)
In your response to my post You think that I want you to be quiet, that is not the case. I'm glad that you post your views for all to read.
I will say again that they grate on everything in me for the reasons that I stated, but my real purpose in saying those things was to see if you might be motivated to change your views.
Unfortunately in TWI "spiritual anger" was used as a method of controlling people UNJUSTLY and looking back at my anger and sorrow about you Oldiesman I don't see them as unjust. But I'm still considering the matter.
(added in editing)(edited for clarity also, not to mention spelling)
Dear Oldiesman,
With the shared and public internet access that I have I cannot PM anybody. There is allways E-mail however if you would care to. To be perfectly honest with you I am content with the public nature of our communication. I'm quite certain that I have nothing to be concerned about with private communication as any visit to my 'member profile' will verify, especially as I see the potiential good that can come "from" this site and any fellowship with possible friends as a good thing. I'm pretty certain Oldies that you will only find me to be angry, sorrowfull, and at times lacking patience with you however.
I feel a need to post here in support of Rocky. When TLB's post (now thankfully removed) was brought to my attention, it struck me as an extremely wrong characterization of Rocky. The person who told me about it (I rarely read this section) was also a little surprised, THAT person and Rocky rarely agree on a topic.
I have never known Rocky to post in support of ANYone's abuse of women, nor have I seen him cover for old vpw at any time. I think most here would agree. I am concerned that nobody called TLB out on it long before it sat here for several days, even if it had NOT wrongly included Rocky and had been directed only at Mike and Oldies.
I should have not included Rocky's name in my diatribe. Otherwise I am contrite and ask forgiveness. I was wrong to threaten the posters, but felt frustrated. I sank to Craig Martindale's level in my retort. That's how hideous TWI made many of us. Violence directed at anyone even against Victor Paul Wierwille(when he was alive) or Craig Martindale, or even Chris Geer, despite having noble ideas of revenge(to give them a taste of their own medicine) is not true Christian maturity, or having Christ-like love. Again I ask my fellow posters here at Greasespot Cafe to forgive me for this stupid mistake. We now return you to our regular programing.
It's worth outrage to the nth degree! Especially when one considers where these God-given scriptures originally came from........the mouth of God!
How is it likely that any one could twist them around, and then teach others to do the same thing to lure those who trusted in them to teach [the same] sometimes 2 at a time into an abomination of three-somes.
And in case any of you would like to challenge me......I do know whereof I speak!
Found a book in the local library which looked interesting so I took it out and have flipped through it. I found the following extract. I am not very impressed by what this book says on much that is recorded in the Bible: but then, it does say, Jewish Lore & Legend, not Jewish truths. Nonetheless, there may be traditions that have been handed down that throw some light on the customs alleged in the second paragraph.
I have split the extract into two, the first part being what is recorded in the Bible and the second part being apparently pure PI but I'm just wondering if some of our Jewish cafe society (Abigail?) can offer any comment?
Extract from "Dictionary of Jewish Lore & Legend" (Pub: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 1991)
"Bathsheba: Favourite wife of King David and mother of his successor Solomon. David fell in love with her when he glimpsed her bathing and had an affair with her. When she became pregnant, he arranged for her soldier husband Uriah the Hittite to be sent home so that he would regard the child as his own. This ruse failed, and Uriah was posted to the front line so he would be killed in battle. Nathan the prophet upbraided the king for his evil doings in taking away another man's wife (II Sam 11,12).
"Despite the Bible's negative portrait of David's relationship with Bathsheba, the Talmud maintains that he did not in fact commit adultery. All soldiers in the king's army had to give a conditional get, or bill of divorce, to their wives in case they never returned from the battlefield. Thus, Bathsheba was a divorcee, and David's affair with her was not an adulterous one. She was in fact a very young girl at the time of her first contact with David and still a virgin, for Uriah had not consumated the marriage. Even when she eventually gave birth to Solomon, her first child having died in infancy, she had still not reached her teens."
I can't see what possible basis there might be for suggesting she was a virgin at the time of David's first naughty deed. David at the time was no spring chicken and this makes him out to be some particularly nasty old lecher with serious paedophile tendencies. But then again he did have a young maidservant to warm him in his last days.
Well if it wasn`t considered adultery for David to have been with Bathsheba, I don`t think that he would have worked so hard to cover his action. I don`t think God would have gone to the trouble of sending a prophet to straighten him out.
Sounds like that dictionary of jewish lore is still trying to make David look good.
Thing is...according to twi teachings David was not born again, not of the spirit. That is why they needed prophets and direct intervention from God.
As a supposed man of the spirit, wierwille should have been WAY above this sort of thing.
A man filled with the spirit of God just wouldn`t have done these things.
"a man filled with the spirit of God just wouldn't have done these things"
rascal, that's why i question whether or not vpw was truly born again... these are not the kinds of "mistakes" and "errors" that spirit-filled people make...
personally, i can only conclude that vpw was a false prophet who loved the attention (fame) and the money (fortune)...
It looks to me that the writers of the Talmud were trying to do the same thing for David that some are attempting to do for the top TWI leadership today. I wish that they'd all stop trying to hide and/or justify mens' sins and realize that scripture takes a much more honest look at even the best mens' faults than they can stomach to do themselves.
As for me, when I see them try to cover these things up by their various deceitful methods my patience runs out fast. When I see these same people continue to oppress the victims of this abuse I get angry. ( I think that the internet softens my apparent emotions somewhat.) Well, in general I'll take up these things in person if that door ever opens up.
As far as the victims go, IT IS NOT A SIN TO BE A VICTIM.. It is sin to abuse authority to satisfy one's own lust. IF ANYONE WANTS TO DISCUSS THAT POINT IN DOCTRINAL, IT WON'T EVEN BE A CLOSE CONTEST. IMO a total no-brainer except for the brainless perhaps.
Dear Rascal and Jen-o,
I'm on your side on this issue, but I'm still thankful for the things I learned in PFAL, but I understand totally why you feel the way you do. I believe that it's totally possible for a man with the Spirit of God and a genuine ministry to become totally corrupt. I take these events as warnings to not do the same thing, because whether or not anyone is REALLY born again when they sin like this I think we can agree that ultimately the Lord Himself will judge all these things once-and-for-all in due time.
He had no conscience. No man with the Holy Spirit living in him, who followed our Lord Christ, could have watched the damage he did, the sexual misconduct and its consequences, people's suicides, devastated lives, families torn apart, etc., and not been deeply hurt, mortified, and appalled.
Most mens' conscience, even after one suicide, would have been devasted.
He cared not, had his leadership rail against the suicides and deaths, it was always someone elses, or something elses fault. It never dawned on him that he could be a cause.
No, he just went merrily, blithely along his way. La de da, isn't this a great day the Lord hath made?
It looks to me that the writers of the Talmud were trying to do the same thing for David that some are attempting to do for the top TWI leadership today. I wish that they'd all stop trying to hide and/or justify mens' sins and realize that scripture takes a much more honest look at even the best mens' faults than they can stomach to do themselves.
As for me, when I see them try to cover these things up by their various deceitful methods my patience runs out fast. When I see these same people continue to oppress the victims of this abuse I get angry. ( I think that the internet softens my apparent emotions somewhat.) Well, in general I'll take up these things in person if that door ever opens up.
As far as the victims go, IT IS NOT A SIN TO BE A VICTIM.. It is sin to abuse authority to satisfy one's own lust. IF ANYONE WANTS TO DISCUSS THAT POINT IN DOCTRINAL, IT WON'T EVEN BE A CLOSE CONTEST. IMO a total no-brainer except for the brainless perhaps.
Not long after I got here I was mocked by another poster who told me to, 'be quiet and go play with my girlfriends' or something very near to that anyway. I'm sharing this because my impression of that poster is that he would be willing to stand up for men who practiced this distorted doctrine brought up in this thread but was willing to mock me for my friendly intentions.
There is not often such a clear and obviously hypocritical point that I can bring up as this one.
How come the hypocrits are the ones who excel at playing the "shame card."
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
19
14
14
Popular Days
Apr 30
33
Apr 29
28
May 1
20
Apr 28
14
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 16 posts
oldiesman 19 posts
brideofjc 14 posts
JeffSjo 14 posts
Popular Days
Apr 30 2008
33 posts
Apr 29 2008
28 posts
May 1 2008
20 posts
Apr 28 2008
14 posts
jen-o
gee, rascal, i'm not sure that i want to "get it"...
if "getting it" means that i become so emotionally invested in a message board that i feel like physically harming someone else...
peace,
jen-o
:)
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
And for the record, since I deleted the text of my posts earlier, Bumgarner had COMPLETELY mistaken my views.
I NEVER sympathized with Oldiesman, nor attempted to justify ANYTHING that Wierwille (the grandfather) did regarding the sexual abuse of young women. NEVER.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
amen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Maybe Thomas just had a bad day, or maybe he had a Clue flashback
Oldiesman in the Cafe with the Lead Pipe.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
White Dove, thanks. I want to apologize to all the posters here. I ended up as bad as VPW, CG, and LCM with my outburst of anger. Already wrote to Pawtuckett expressing my shame for immaturity. Tried to be a knight in shining armor. At least I asked for forgiveness, something TWI never did. After hearing Ralph D's interview and what I took as OM's "attack" on Rascal, well that was the final straw that broke the camel's back. BTW, OM, WTH, MIke are now on my ignore button when they post. As I have said many times, I am struggling with my "Cult Addiction" and GSC is like a theraputic AA/NA group. Usually I am calm and not preturbed.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You did NOT acknowledge your misguided characterization of my views.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
As this thread is about the TWI doctrine concerning how all the women in the kingdom belong to the king it seems that some emotion will inevitably be stirred up. In one of my first discussions on this site I went overboard in anger and attacked a few posters many times. After being warned by a moderator I posted an apology for everyone to read.
Because of those events I'm now focussing on things that I may be able to say that would actually help people. I find that on certain issues the emotions will still rise to the surface and I'm hoping that if they do that they are as justified as they were when a certain king threw certain vendors out of the temple. I'm not the final judge, I believe He is.
As this isn't a religious site I ask for all of you to be patient with me if you don't hold the same views I do concerning the bible, but I ask you to look at the principles behind the scriptures that I may share and on my part I will give full consideration to whatever points you all may make.
Dear Oldiesman, (regarding post #92)
In your response to my post You think that I want you to be quiet, that is not the case. I'm glad that you post your views for all to read.
I will say again that they grate on everything in me for the reasons that I stated, but my real purpose in saying those things was to see if you might be motivated to change your views.
Unfortunately in TWI "spiritual anger" was used as a method of controlling people UNJUSTLY and looking back at my anger and sorrow about you Oldiesman I don't see them as unjust. But I'm still considering the matter.
(added in editing)(edited for clarity also, not to mention spelling)
Dear Oldiesman,
With the shared and public internet access that I have I cannot PM anybody. There is allways E-mail however if you would care to. To be perfectly honest with you I am content with the public nature of our communication. I'm quite certain that I have nothing to be concerned about with private communication as any visit to my 'member profile' will verify, especially as I see the potiential good that can come "from" this site and any fellowship with possible friends as a good thing. I'm pretty certain Oldies that you will only find me to be angry, sorrowfull, and at times lacking patience with you however.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
I feel a need to post here in support of Rocky. When TLB's post (now thankfully removed) was brought to my attention, it struck me as an extremely wrong characterization of Rocky. The person who told me about it (I rarely read this section) was also a little surprised, THAT person and Rocky rarely agree on a topic.
I have never known Rocky to post in support of ANYone's abuse of women, nor have I seen him cover for old vpw at any time. I think most here would agree. I am concerned that nobody called TLB out on it long before it sat here for several days, even if it had NOT wrongly included Rocky and had been directed only at Mike and Oldies.
OK, I will go quietly back to my corner..........
~HAP
(edited to remove double post)
Edited by HAPe4meLink to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
I should have not included Rocky's name in my diatribe. Otherwise I am contrite and ask forgiveness. I was wrong to threaten the posters, but felt frustrated. I sank to Craig Martindale's level in my retort. That's how hideous TWI made many of us. Violence directed at anyone even against Victor Paul Wierwille(when he was alive) or Craig Martindale, or even Chris Geer, despite having noble ideas of revenge(to give them a taste of their own medicine) is not true Christian maturity, or having Christ-like love. Again I ask my fellow posters here at Greasespot Cafe to forgive me for this stupid mistake. We now return you to our regular programing.
Edited by Thomas Loy BumgarnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Well said Thomas.
Personally I completly understand why abusing the Bible to have sexual relations with young woman might raise your dander a bit.
My time is up, the library is closing.
Take care all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Thank you Thomas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Personally, I think EVERYONE's dander should be raised a bit over this, and I have
difficulty with the idea that some people, apparently, are just fine over this.
I think it's WORTH some outrage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
It's worth outrage to the nth degree! Especially when one considers where these God-given scriptures originally came from........the mouth of God!
How is it likely that any one could twist them around, and then teach others to do the same thing to lure those who trusted in them to teach [the same] sometimes 2 at a time into an abomination of three-somes.
And in case any of you would like to challenge me......I do know whereof I speak!
krys
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Found a book in the local library which looked interesting so I took it out and have flipped through it. I found the following extract. I am not very impressed by what this book says on much that is recorded in the Bible: but then, it does say, Jewish Lore & Legend, not Jewish truths. Nonetheless, there may be traditions that have been handed down that throw some light on the customs alleged in the second paragraph.
I have split the extract into two, the first part being what is recorded in the Bible and the second part being apparently pure PI but I'm just wondering if some of our Jewish cafe society (Abigail?) can offer any comment?
Extract from "Dictionary of Jewish Lore & Legend" (Pub: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 1991)
"Bathsheba: Favourite wife of King David and mother of his successor Solomon. David fell in love with her when he glimpsed her bathing and had an affair with her. When she became pregnant, he arranged for her soldier husband Uriah the Hittite to be sent home so that he would regard the child as his own. This ruse failed, and Uriah was posted to the front line so he would be killed in battle. Nathan the prophet upbraided the king for his evil doings in taking away another man's wife (II Sam 11,12).
"Despite the Bible's negative portrait of David's relationship with Bathsheba, the Talmud maintains that he did not in fact commit adultery. All soldiers in the king's army had to give a conditional get, or bill of divorce, to their wives in case they never returned from the battlefield. Thus, Bathsheba was a divorcee, and David's affair with her was not an adulterous one. She was in fact a very young girl at the time of her first contact with David and still a virgin, for Uriah had not consumated the marriage. Even when she eventually gave birth to Solomon, her first child having died in infancy, she had still not reached her teens."
I can't see what possible basis there might be for suggesting she was a virgin at the time of David's first naughty deed. David at the time was no spring chicken and this makes him out to be some particularly nasty old lecher with serious paedophile tendencies. But then again he did have a young maidservant to warm him in his last days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
having scrolled through this thread i see i am not up to the task
so i have replied on sandy sullivan (poor thing) thread
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Well if it wasn`t considered adultery for David to have been with Bathsheba, I don`t think that he would have worked so hard to cover his action. I don`t think God would have gone to the trouble of sending a prophet to straighten him out.
Sounds like that dictionary of jewish lore is still trying to make David look good.
Thing is...according to twi teachings David was not born again, not of the spirit. That is why they needed prophets and direct intervention from God.
As a supposed man of the spirit, wierwille should have been WAY above this sort of thing.
A man filled with the spirit of God just wouldn`t have done these things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's obvious no "sola scriptura" type (those who make the Bible their textbook) would take that whitewash seriously.
The Bible says one thing, the legends book says the opposite.
They can't both be right (although both can be wrong.)
I know which one I believe over the other...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
rascal wrote:
"a man filled with the spirit of God just wouldn't have done these things"
rascal, that's why i question whether or not vpw was truly born again... these are not the kinds of "mistakes" and "errors" that spirit-filled people make...
personally, i can only conclude that vpw was a false prophet who loved the attention (fame) and the money (fortune)...
peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
....Jeno, there is no longer any doubt in my mind.
All of wierwiiles *research* seemed directed at finding loopholes in the scriptures that would allow him license to do as he damned well pleased.
I firmly believe that he will be one of those that Jesus one days tells to *depart for I knew you not*
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Dear Twinky, (concerning your post, #115)
It looks to me that the writers of the Talmud were trying to do the same thing for David that some are attempting to do for the top TWI leadership today. I wish that they'd all stop trying to hide and/or justify mens' sins and realize that scripture takes a much more honest look at even the best mens' faults than they can stomach to do themselves.
As for me, when I see them try to cover these things up by their various deceitful methods my patience runs out fast. When I see these same people continue to oppress the victims of this abuse I get angry. ( I think that the internet softens my apparent emotions somewhat.) Well, in general I'll take up these things in person if that door ever opens up.
As far as the victims go, IT IS NOT A SIN TO BE A VICTIM.. It is sin to abuse authority to satisfy one's own lust. IF ANYONE WANTS TO DISCUSS THAT POINT IN DOCTRINAL, IT WON'T EVEN BE A CLOSE CONTEST. IMO a total no-brainer except for the brainless perhaps.
Dear Rascal and Jen-o,
I'm on your side on this issue, but I'm still thankful for the things I learned in PFAL, but I understand totally why you feel the way you do. I believe that it's totally possible for a man with the Spirit of God and a genuine ministry to become totally corrupt. I take these events as warnings to not do the same thing, because whether or not anyone is REALLY born again when they sin like this I think we can agree that ultimately the Lord Himself will judge all these things once-and-for-all in due time.
Peace, and hopefully friendship,
JEFF
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Word. Amen to that ladies.
He had no conscience. No man with the Holy Spirit living in him, who followed our Lord Christ, could have watched the damage he did, the sexual misconduct and its consequences, people's suicides, devastated lives, families torn apart, etc., and not been deeply hurt, mortified, and appalled.
Most mens' conscience, even after one suicide, would have been devasted.
He cared not, had his leadership rail against the suicides and deaths, it was always someone elses, or something elses fault. It never dawned on him that he could be a cause.
No, he just went merrily, blithely along his way. La de da, isn't this a great day the Lord hath made?
Who can I screw today?
What an evil man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
dear jeff,
but of course... i will add you to my friend's list! :)
peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Thank you Jen-o,
I just did the same thing.
(added in editing)(grammar too)
Not long after I got here I was mocked by another poster who told me to, 'be quiet and go play with my girlfriends' or something very near to that anyway. I'm sharing this because my impression of that poster is that he would be willing to stand up for men who practiced this distorted doctrine brought up in this thread but was willing to mock me for my friendly intentions.
There is not often such a clear and obviously hypocritical point that I can bring up as this one.
How come the hypocrits are the ones who excel at playing the "shame card."
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.