....it is my opinion that, the conduct of these hypocritical "whited sepulchres" indeed nullifies their purported "beliefs" as being "biblically accurate"...........it is also my opinion that, despite their interpretation of what is "scriptural truth", any such "scriptural truth" they may have spoken or taught is indeed negated (as spoken or taught by them) by their blatantly "unscriptural" conduct!....
...Says who? Chapter and verse please (and it should be quoted in the scriptures, not someone's interpretation of what someone MAY THINK something says.)
I think this is a false doctrine being promoted. Beware of false doctrines folks.
Matthew 15: 1-9 NASB
1Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
2"Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."
3And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
4"For God said, ' HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, ' HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.'
5"But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,"
6he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7"You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
8 ' THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
9 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"
Mark 7:5-13 NASB
5The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?"
6And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
' THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 ' BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8"Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."
9He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 "For Moses said, ' HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, ' HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."
Awesome post Penworks. If the shoe fits, wear it. And it does fit VP to a "T," doesn't it?
Its almost as if he was in the WC with us.
Oldies, I'm sorry, but after reading your posts for all these years, you warning people to beware of a "false prophet" or "false teachings" - which I assume you mean DWBH, since it is his article we are discussing - is ludicrous.
You are the poster boy for the true false prophet - VP.
To warn others of something you don't agree with, and labelling these opinions as false prophecy, will never fly in here.
You used up any good will, or anyone wanting to take into account what you may say, years ago with your attacks, belittling, twisting of words, calling people liars, insinuating they enjoyed being raped, etc.
Although, I'm sure your two or three followers will be in full agreement - which is of course, predictable.
T-Bone, it appears those verses are talking about a distinction that Jesus makes between the commandment of God and the traditions of men. The Pharisees by their traditions, the traditions of men, have made their traditions take the place of the commandments of God in their life; thus they have invalidated the word in that life, by their traditions. Doesn't make the word or commandments any less true. "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the traditions of men"... It doesn't say that the word or commandment of God is any less true because of the Pharisees behavior or traditions.
Awesome post Penworks. If the shoe fits, wear it. And it does fit VP to a "T," doesn't it?
Its almost as if he was in the WC with us.
Oldies, I'm sorry, but after reading your posts for all these years, you warning people to beware of a "false prophet" or "false teachings" - which I assume you mean DWBH, since it is his article we are discussing - is ludicrous.
You are the poster boy for the true false prophet - VP.
To warn others of something you don't agree with, and labelling these opinions as false prophecy, will never fly in here.
You used up any good will, or anyone wanting to take into account what you may say, years ago with your attacks, belittling, twisting of words, calling people liars, insinuating they enjoyed being raped, etc.
Although, I'm sure your two or three followers will be in full agreement - which is of course, predictable.
Sunesis, I didn't label DWBH anything, much less a false prophet; you should not A$$-U-ME.
Says who? Chapter and verse please (and it should be quoted in the scriptures, not someone's interpretation of what someone MAY THINK something says.)
I think this is a false doctrine being promoted. Beware of false doctrines folks.
Lord have mercy!
What has this world come to?
Not only do I find myself cracking open a Bible, here I go quoting it.
I Corinthians 13:1
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.
Yeah, I know somebody will be quick to say, "It says 'I become as' not 'what I say becomes as'."
But look a little closer. The brass is no longer making music, it's "sounding". The cymbal isn't part of a musical context, it's merely "tinkling". And so it was with VP. He said a lot of words but, because of the darkness of his psyche, those words became "sounds" and "tinklings".
Like the humble cymbal, he couldn't muster more than a "tinkle" due to his distorted sense of human value.
HaHa! We thought he was speaking profound wisdom when in reality he was merely "tinkling".
Hey, Mike, ever catch that Golden Pony? He sure is an elusive one, though, isn't he?
If the music is not played properly or with love, doesn't mean the music is wrong, it means the person playing it is playing it wrong. The solution is not to throw away the music , the solution is to go find someone who plays the same music the right way.
T-Bone, it appears those verses are talking about a distinction that Jesus makes between the commandment of God and the traditions of men. The Pharisees by their traditions, the traditions of men, have made their traditions take the place of the commandments of God in their life; thus they have invalidated the word in that life, by their traditions. Doesn't make the word or commandments any less true. "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the traditions of men"... It doesn't say that the word or commandment of God is any less true because of the Pharisees behavior or traditions...
The Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus says "tradition" is a custom, opinion, or belief handed down to posterity…
With that in mind, refer again to another key verse in Matthew –
Matthew 15:3 NASB
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"
What were vp's & LCM's opinions/beliefs on adultery and sexual promiscuity? These things are clearly forbidden in the Bible – are they not? And yet, by their behavior and comments [like unto the pure all things are pure, anything done in the love of God is okay] as a supposed minister of god – ahem, as the-man-o-god-for-this-day-and-time-and-hour set a bold example for transgressing the moral laws of God! It's not a matter of making the Word of God any less true – it's the hypocrite's way of redefining truth on their own terms. So when it's talking about adultery in the Bible, it's really talking about spiritual adultery, cuz ya know, God is a jealous God, He doesn't like you chasing after other gods [said in my best vp dialect].
For those of us who were around vpw, I think we can verify that the following info written by Dr. Sam Vaknin is a pretty good description of the way vpw (and some other twi leaders) acted much of the time. The court's findings referenced above make a distinction between belief and actions. Actions that betray the trust people put in their religious leaders are WRONG. Actions like the ones described below, IMO, are in this catagory.
Regardless of what vpw or others like him have taught about the Bible, I think it's safe to say it's more than wise to avoid the company of a person who behaves in ways described below, and at the very least we should regard as suspect anything they might teach. Keep in mind that vpw's teachings and the teachings of twi at present are founded on a way of interpreting the Bible that is fabricated by Christian fundamentalists and are not the ONLY or right way to view the books of the Bible... and some of vpw's teachings IMO are downright manipulation of the scriptures, such as 4 crucified, Eli Eli, spiritual adultery, etc. etc. There are many references to these sorts of teachings here at gsc, like the article called Actual errors in PFAL, etc
The right to believe is absolute. The right to act is subject to reasonable regulation designed to protect a compelling state interest.
Thankfully this is true and is a basic part of our rights as citizens of the ol' US of A.
It can be flawed in application and history is filled with cases where individuals determine to act against society's regulations to pursue change, with the result that the change is good. But that comes with the system, I think. It's good, not perfect - it can also have the negative effect of providing a means for society to act against itself by regulating activity that isn't a clear threat to others. But that's part of the ongoing process of living and working the system.
I've long said that while the Way International has some esoteric beliefs, the right to have them goes without question. They may run against the values of society at large, "Christian" beliefs, non-Christian beliefs, the bible, the Quaran, the Yellow Pages - in a free society like this we are free to think for ourselves.
Acting on them is a different issue and is treated differently, as it should be. What I believe is me - what I do could be the business of others if it effects them or involves them.
The fact that the Way Int'l. hasn't taught all of these beliefs openly for all members and participants to know and evaulate is a problem they've never addressed. Even today, the PR statement seems to be that they've made changes, but any changes supposedly made haven't been clearly articulated - they're between a rock and a hard place - by admitting some problems have been corrected they would have to clearly articulate what those problems were - and that would put some things out on the table they surely don't want to be held liable for.
So by having a President of the Way resign here, other members leave or terminte there, they can give the unspoken impression that those who are left weren't the problem and have no liability for the past events - the court statements in the Allen case say otherwise.
But to me a huge problem they still have is the resistance to openly state what that case was all about from a historical standpoint - the settlement for the case included that no one would reveal the details once the settlement was accepted. Like it or not, they can't talk about it now publically.
Still - the events provided a huge amount of general information that wasn't specifially part of the Allen suit that can be discussed and IMO should be - because of that statement - beliefs are one right, acting on them another.
Are the members of the Way really safe according to what the Way International holds is their right to act according to what they believe? In regards to these issues I would think there is a risk to members. Silence isn't affirmation. It doesn't mean there's been change - these beliefs and ideas weren't common public knowledge in the past - what's to say they're still quietly accepted and believed in private today?
If I were a member I'd want to know the 411, clearly and in print. The Way International is a "biblical research" organization. What's the work that's been done in the bible that clarifies these issues for members?
I'm not a member, so my interest is limited. If I were, I'd want to know.
The right to believe is absolute. The right to act is subject to reasonable regulation designed to protect a compelling state interest.
Thankfully this is true and is a basic part of our rights as citizens of the ol' US of A.
It can be flawed in application and history is filled with cases where individuals determine to act against society's regulations to pursue change, with the result that the change is good. But that comes with the system, I think. It's good, not perfect - it can also have the negative effect of providing a means for society to act against itself by regulating activity that isn't a clear threat to others. But that's part of the ongoing process of living and working the system.
Now that the "strawman" argument has been setup...where in the HISTORY of mankind would you like to start debating this statement??? How 'bout freedom of speech in Europe or Japan or... Corporate America and what you can say at the workplace or even here at the gs cult site??
Then we can move to Calvin and Hobbes and the "enlightenment" of the Protestant Reformation of 1517, Luther vs. Superman until Vietnam...help me here to make the connection!
The right to believe is absolute until when...?and I guess so is the right to die talking about it. <_<
Now that the "strawman" argument has been setup...where in the HISTORY of mankind would you like to start debating this statement??? How 'bout freedom of speech in Europe or Japan or... Corporate America and what you can say at the workplace or even here at the gs cult site??
Then we can move to Calvin and Hobbes and the "enlightenment" of the Protestant Reformation of 1517, Luther vs. Superman until Vietnam...help me here to make the connection!
The right to believe is absolute until when...?and I guess so is the right to die talking about it. <_<
You're full of baloney, Bumpy.
Socks did not (nor did DWBH) set up any strawman argument.
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
-------
By citing actual court findings based on evidence presented, there is NO distortion of "Person A"'s (TWIs) position.
Further, Socks's premise (in the statement: "The right to believe is absolute. The right to act is subject to reasonable regulation designed to protect a compelling state interest.") is a reasonable representation of the distinction the court made between the right of TWI to believe what they (it) want to believe and the right of the court to issue findings that the conduct of TWI is rightfully subject to sanction/penalty when said conduct violates law.
DWBH, you said you had been deposed. I'm wondering if you have a copy of any affidavit [deposition] you made and which you can attach. You were not a party to the proceedings, merely a witness, so the gag order would not apply to you.
Rocky, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the definition of a strawman or even a snowman. But saying someone is full of baloney is like asking whether you have a law degree from Ball St.? However, since this case was settled out of court many years ago...and no guilt was admitted, after all has been said and done who do you think really won?
"...is a reasonable representation of the distinction the court made between the right of TWI to believe what they (it) want to believe and the right of the court to issue findings that the conduct of TWI is rightfully subject to sanction/penalty when said conduct violates law."
Sounds like TWI got off with nothing more than a little negative publicity and some legal fees??
as many of us who have spent any considerable length of time browsing the greasespotcafe forums have come to know, there have, through the years of this site's existence, been a number of discussions regarding whether or not the conduct/behavior of vic, or the dancing prez, the doofus from okie, and the current twi prez, rosie the riveter. along with their various BOT cronies,.............even when flagrantly contrary to what many would agree "god's word" clearly states and prescribes as necessary and proper conduct/behavior the body of christ may rightfully expect and demand from its church "leadership"................. still does not negate whatever, if any, "scriptural truth" these church "leaders" may have taught or spoken...........spawning oft-repeated proclamations from the small core of "apologists" loyal to vic, et al, along the lines of, "truth is truth, no matter who speaks it"!
in re-reading the final decree by judge john d.schmitt in the common pleas court of shelby ohio, which is posted on the greasespot home page, in the "Editorials" section under the title The Final Decree-John D. Scmitt, i thought several paragraphs from the decree would provide an interesting topic for discussion here, for any who might like to participate......a comment on another thread inspired the topic title i chose for this thread, "truth, justice, and the 'not-so-american' way international...........those paragraphs follow, and i have bolded several specific sentences which i hope will become central to any ensuing discussion.............
"However, even though the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution prohibit Civil Courts from unwarranted intrusion into religious doctrine, policy, or purely ecclesiastical or spiritual disputes of a church or a religious organization, there is no constitutional protection for actions which, even when clothed in a religious mantle, violate basic premises of our society. Swann v. Pa , 527 S.W. 2d 99 (Tenn. 1975). The right to believe is absolute. The right to act is subject to reasonable regulation designed to protect a compelling state interest. Id. The United States Supreme Court has specifically held that while laws cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices. Reynolds v. .1 IS, 98 U. S. 145 (1878). The Court finds that an important distinction exists between belief and conduct.The beliefs espoused by The Way, and its members, are not subject to review by this Court. The conduct of The Way, and its members, is subject to reasonable regulationdesignedto protect a compelling state interest. The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution cannot be used to protect The Way, or its members, against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order and morals of society. Davis v, Beasor 133 U.S. 333, 342 (1980). Accordingly, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that sexual misconduct by clergy is not protected by any claim of First Amendment privilege. Strock v. Pres 38 Ohio St.3d (1988). Similarly, a religious organization can be held liable for failing to protect its members from the sexual assaults of its employees. Byrd v Faber, 57 Ohio St.3d 56 (1991). The Court finds that Craig Martindale's sexual encounters with Mrs. Allen must be considered as conduct, rather than beliefs. The issue is whether or not the sexual relationship was consensual. The state has a compelling interest in preserving the peace, and that includes the prevention of sexual assaults. Counts one and two of plaintiffs complaint are predicated upon plaintiffs' allegation that Mrs. Allen was sexually assaulted by Craig Martindale, a trustee and leader of The Way at the time. The issue of whether or not the sexual relations between Mr. Martindale and Ms. Allen was consensual, is a question of fact, which must be left to the jury."
In Count Five, plaintiffs allege that defendants acted in concert to achieve an unlawful purpose, and as a result of defendants' conspiracy, plaintiffs have been assaulted. There is evidence that Rosalie Rivenbark knew about Craig Martindale's extra marital sexual relationships, as early as 1995. Deposition of L. Craig Martindale, page 123. Accordingly, a jury must decide not only if Mrs. Allen has been sexually assaulted, but also whether or not a conspiracy existed among the defendants, which enabled the alleged assault to occur."
"Similarly, in Count Six, plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity, which included acts. of assault and rape. There is evidence to indicate that both Rosalie Rivenbark and Ramona Bidon played a role in the events leading up to the sexual encounter between Craig Martindale and Mrs. Allen. A jury must decide whether the encounter was consensual, or if an assault occurred. If the jury finds that an assault occurred, the same jury might reasonably conclude that defendants engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity, which led to the assault."
i was deposed by twi's lawyers during the discovery phase of this case, and was scheduled to appear as a witness for the plaintiffs............i am acutely aware of why twi abruptly decided to settle this case out of court..............and so too are those defendants still alive, despite the years of unabashed "SPIN" they and twi, and their "faithful" apologists have unrelentingly vomited upon their "household" of followers, and the very few nominal and/or "cosmetic" so-called "changes" to their public personae!
it is my opinion that, the conduct of these hypocritical "whited sepulchres" indeed nullifies their purported "beliefs" as being "biblically accurate"...........it is also my opinion that, despite their interpretation of what is "scriptural truth", any such "scriptural truth" they may have spoken or taught is indeed negated (as spoken or taught by them) by their blatantly "unscriptural" conduct!
let the discussion begin!.........and let's all "play nice" and try hard to avoid ad hominem attacks..........such attacks are, after all, classic logical fallacies, and, as such, do not encourage fruitful, civil discussion, but rather, choke and destroy civil discussion, while taking all the fun out of it too!!!..................................peace.
Taken from the clip of Reynolds v. .1 IS, 98 U. S. 145 (1878) that was quoted, I'd assume it's based on a simple interpretation of our Constitution. The Declaration of Independence kinda has that ring to it in spots. I agree with the statement I quoted completely.
I have to go back and read a whole lot more, but just want to post while I'm thinking of certain things.
The "compartment thinking" is very interesting to me especially since I think I was a master!
Geisha, wow, that was great. Peddling the Word is a fine description. What you said about causing one to stumble really touched my heart more than you can ever realize.
Don, I copied something I loved from your opening post:
"The Court finds that an important distinction exists between belief and conduct. The beliefs espoused by The Way, and its members, are not subject to review by this Court. The conduct of The Way, and its members, is subject to reasonable regulation designed to protect a compelling state interest. The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution cannot be used to protect The Way, or its members, against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order and morals of society."
it is my opinion that, the conduct of these hypocritical "whited sepulchres" indeed nullifies their purported "beliefs" as being "biblically accurate"...........it is also my opinion that, despite their interpretation of what is "scriptural truth", any such "scriptural truth" they may have spoken or taught is indeed negated (as spoken or taught by them) by their blatantly "unscriptural" conduct!
Ive been trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to say the same thing for years but the ears are deaf. (which was also something Wierwille taught).
The argument seems to be along the lines of -"Well if a chemisrty teacher was a mass murderer it doesnt negate the chemical formulas that he taught" or something along those lines.
The obvious difference is that Christianity is not a formula which is being taught but a lifestyle.
Any buffoon with a pulse who can read-- can read me scripture verses whether they believe it or they dont....big deal...
Ive had crackheads read me bible verses --so what--no matter where in the bible they decide to read or "teach"--the main thing lesson that I hear from them is that crack is alright---The same goes for Wierwille
Wierwilles attitude, self centeredness hardheartedness, deception, paranoia, narcissism all come through in his jumble of "teachings" --Its the major effing point!
His "failures" are bound together and generate out of his mish mosh theology and teachings.
Can you say Jesus is Lord? Can you say Pea Soup?
Who cares? Anybody can, I dont consider him valuable simply because who knew how to read. I can do that on my own.
The dark spirit that underlayed and infused his teaching was enough to make any of the "scriptural "part of highly questionable and negligible worth.
Seeing what it brought, and for what it was, its best to get rid of the whole sordid mess, and if anyone has any christian yearning--- start again from scratch
Well, it's an interesting topic running here, to be sure. "Freedom of speech" - the Way's right to hold beliefs and speak them is a different topic. I'm not personally addressing this thread topic in that light, as I don't think that's what the thread topic is or was meant to address. As mstart just posted, anyone can hold any belief they choose, teach any version of the bible they wish to generate. It's not the belief, or even the way I personally choose to live it which others may disagree with - it's the conduct, the actions people and how they effect others that the court statements quoted appear to be addressing.
Back to what you clipped exmiska - "The Court finds that an important distinction exists between belief and conduct. "
The Court finds that an important distinction exists between belief and conduct. The beliefs espoused by The Way, and its members, are not subject to review by this Court. The conduct of The Way, and its members, is subject to reasonable regulation designed to protect a compelling state interest. The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution cannot be used to protect The Way, or its members, against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order and morals of society."
...Ive been trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to say the same thing for years but the ears are deaf. (which was also something Wierwille taught).
The argument seems to be along the lines of -"Well if a chemisrty teacher was a mass murderer it doesnt negate the chemical formulas that he taught" or something along those lines.
The obvious difference is that Christianity is not a formula which is being taught but a lifestyle....
Perhaps someone should start a thread about Rosie and her involvement in the sex scandals?...the court records show that she knew what was going on?...put her feet to the fire.
Ain't it the truth. Step away from the light, I mean the church.
WOW! Been years since I have played "Bible Gotcha" Seems to be a still viable sport with some here. The twisted logic and double speak remind me of the "Good Old Days" when I used to hit people upside the head with scripture. I guess I just don't have the stomach for it anymore.
I am rusty and now lack the talent to twist and turn those words to wound. Er, I mean expound.
Rocky, I just realized you said what I wrote a bit ago. Ha! Thanks, that sums up at least what I posted. Beliefs and conduct are/were being treated differently by the courts in those statements, as they should be I think. Freedom of speech in Japan wasn't mentioned that I saw, so I'll leave that to another thread topic, those informed on that topic and who are interested in posting to it.
Sounds like TWI got off with nothing more than a little negative publicity and some legal fees??
Any statement claiming to characterize the penalty or sanctions or anything else that adversely impacted TWI -- unless accompanied by or arising from an actual knowledge of said penalty, etc., is an empty assumption.
You're free to assume whatever you want about what it cost them. As usual, however, you appear to be speaking from an overwhelming lack of insight.
Rocky, I just realized you said what I wrote a bit ago. Ha! Thanks, that sums up at least what I posted. Beliefs and conduct are/were being treated differently by the courts in those statements, as they should be I think.
DWBH, I disagree, and have found no reason to believe that unscriptural conduct negates scriptural truth.
On first blush, you are assuming that what vp taught in pfal was scriptural. That debate is on going and far from settled. With respect to the teacher's ungodly behavior calling into question what he taught, the following well known passages come quickly to mind:
By their fruits you shall know them.
Jesus didn't spend a lot of time criticizing people for what they believed but he sharply rebuked ungodly religious leaders for what they DID.
Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees
Jesus criticized the Pharisees not so much their understanding of scripture but by their application of it and it made their converts a two-fold more a child of hell than they were themselves.
Wolves in sheeps clothing
If a wolf says "baa, baa", he is still a wolf. By the way, many sheep in twi ignored warning and paid the price for it.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
13
13
9
Popular Days
Jun 27
44
Jun 29
23
Jun 30
23
Jun 28
22
Top Posters In This Topic
Oakspear 7 posts
WhiteDove 13 posts
doojable 13 posts
Bumpy 9 posts
Popular Days
Jun 27 2008
44 posts
Jun 29 2008
23 posts
Jun 30 2008
23 posts
Jun 28 2008
22 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
"it is my opinion that, the conduct of these hypocritical "whited sepulchres" indeed nullifies their purported "beliefs" as being "biblically accurate"...........it is also my opinion that, despite th
geisha779
Excathedra, Your dignity inspires-so right back at ya sister! Sunesis, Ain't it the truth. Step away from the light, I mean the church. WOW! Been years since I have played "Bible Gotcha" Seems to
geisha779
Sounds reasonable, except when you consider the "Word" or "Commandments of God" taught by VP. Then the whole premise is flawed. As many times as we heard--It's the word-the word and nothing but the wo
T-Bone
Matthew 15: 1-9 NASB
1 Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
2 "Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."
3 And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 "For God said, ' HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, ' HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.'
5 "But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,"
6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7 "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
8 ' THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
9 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"
Mark 7:5-13 NASB
5 The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?"
6 And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
' THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 ' BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."
9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 "For Moses said, ' HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, ' HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Awesome post Penworks. If the shoe fits, wear it. And it does fit VP to a "T," doesn't it?
Its almost as if he was in the WC with us.
Oldies, I'm sorry, but after reading your posts for all these years, you warning people to beware of a "false prophet" or "false teachings" - which I assume you mean DWBH, since it is his article we are discussing - is ludicrous.
You are the poster boy for the true false prophet - VP.
To warn others of something you don't agree with, and labelling these opinions as false prophecy, will never fly in here.
You used up any good will, or anyone wanting to take into account what you may say, years ago with your attacks, belittling, twisting of words, calling people liars, insinuating they enjoyed being raped, etc.
Although, I'm sure your two or three followers will be in full agreement - which is of course, predictable.
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
T-Bone, it appears those verses are talking about a distinction that Jesus makes between the commandment of God and the traditions of men. The Pharisees by their traditions, the traditions of men, have made their traditions take the place of the commandments of God in their life; thus they have invalidated the word in that life, by their traditions. Doesn't make the word or commandments any less true. "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the traditions of men"... It doesn't say that the word or commandment of God is any less true because of the Pharisees behavior or traditions.
Sunesis, I didn't label DWBH anything, much less a false prophet; you should not A$$-U-ME.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Lord have mercy!
What has this world come to?
Not only do I find myself cracking open a Bible, here I go quoting it.
I Corinthians 13:1
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.
Yeah, I know somebody will be quick to say, "It says 'I become as' not 'what I say becomes as'."
But look a little closer. The brass is no longer making music, it's "sounding". The cymbal isn't part of a musical context, it's merely "tinkling". And so it was with VP. He said a lot of words but, because of the darkness of his psyche, those words became "sounds" and "tinklings".
Like the humble cymbal, he couldn't muster more than a "tinkle" due to his distorted sense of human value.
HaHa! We thought he was speaking profound wisdom when in reality he was merely "tinkling".
Hey, Mike, ever catch that Golden Pony? He sure is an elusive one, though, isn't he?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
If the music is not played properly or with love, doesn't mean the music is wrong, it means the person playing it is playing it wrong. The solution is not to throw away the music , the solution is to go find someone who plays the same music the right way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus says "tradition" is a custom, opinion, or belief handed down to posterity…
With that in mind, refer again to another key verse in Matthew –
Matthew 15:3 NASB
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"
What were vp's & LCM's opinions/beliefs on adultery and sexual promiscuity? These things are clearly forbidden in the Bible – are they not? And yet, by their behavior and comments [like unto the pure all things are pure, anything done in the love of God is okay] as a supposed minister of god – ahem, as the-man-o-god-for-this-day-and-time-and-hour set a bold example for transgressing the moral laws of God! It's not a matter of making the Word of God any less true – it's the hypocrite's way of redefining truth on their own terms. So when it's talking about adultery in the Bible, it's really talking about spiritual adultery, cuz ya know, God is a jealous God, He doesn't like you chasing after other gods [said in my best vp dialect].
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
It's almost eerie how well Vaknin describes the narcissist and the organization this person establishes around himself...
I know I recognize it.
And frankly, upon reflection, I can easily see two things in particular.
First, his description makes it easy to recognize why it would take a person YEARS to recover from the spiritual abuse endured while in TWI.
Second, it makes it easy (for me) to see how and why so many marriages (in particular, my own) could not endure...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
The right to believe is absolute. The right to act is subject to reasonable regulation designed to protect a compelling state interest.
Thankfully this is true and is a basic part of our rights as citizens of the ol' US of A.
It can be flawed in application and history is filled with cases where individuals determine to act against society's regulations to pursue change, with the result that the change is good. But that comes with the system, I think. It's good, not perfect - it can also have the negative effect of providing a means for society to act against itself by regulating activity that isn't a clear threat to others. But that's part of the ongoing process of living and working the system.
I've long said that while the Way International has some esoteric beliefs, the right to have them goes without question. They may run against the values of society at large, "Christian" beliefs, non-Christian beliefs, the bible, the Quaran, the Yellow Pages - in a free society like this we are free to think for ourselves.
Acting on them is a different issue and is treated differently, as it should be. What I believe is me - what I do could be the business of others if it effects them or involves them.
The fact that the Way Int'l. hasn't taught all of these beliefs openly for all members and participants to know and evaulate is a problem they've never addressed. Even today, the PR statement seems to be that they've made changes, but any changes supposedly made haven't been clearly articulated - they're between a rock and a hard place - by admitting some problems have been corrected they would have to clearly articulate what those problems were - and that would put some things out on the table they surely don't want to be held liable for.
So by having a President of the Way resign here, other members leave or terminte there, they can give the unspoken impression that those who are left weren't the problem and have no liability for the past events - the court statements in the Allen case say otherwise.
But to me a huge problem they still have is the resistance to openly state what that case was all about from a historical standpoint - the settlement for the case included that no one would reveal the details once the settlement was accepted. Like it or not, they can't talk about it now publically.
Still - the events provided a huge amount of general information that wasn't specifially part of the Allen suit that can be discussed and IMO should be - because of that statement - beliefs are one right, acting on them another.
Are the members of the Way really safe according to what the Way International holds is their right to act according to what they believe? In regards to these issues I would think there is a risk to members. Silence isn't affirmation. It doesn't mean there's been change - these beliefs and ideas weren't common public knowledge in the past - what's to say they're still quietly accepted and believed in private today?
If I were a member I'd want to know the 411, clearly and in print. The Way International is a "biblical research" organization. What's the work that's been done in the bible that clarifies these issues for members?
I'm not a member, so my interest is limited. If I were, I'd want to know.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Now that the "strawman" argument has been setup...where in the HISTORY of mankind would you like to start debating this statement??? How 'bout freedom of speech in Europe or Japan or... Corporate America and what you can say at the workplace or even here at the gs cult site??
Then we can move to Calvin and Hobbes and the "enlightenment" of the Protestant Reformation of 1517, Luther vs. Superman until Vietnam...help me here to make the connection!
The right to believe is absolute until when...?and I guess so is the right to die talking about it. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You're full of baloney, Bumpy.
Socks did not (nor did DWBH) set up any strawman argument.
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
-------
By citing actual court findings based on evidence presented, there is NO distortion of "Person A"'s (TWIs) position.
Further, Socks's premise (in the statement: "The right to believe is absolute. The right to act is subject to reasonable regulation designed to protect a compelling state interest.") is a reasonable representation of the distinction the court made between the right of TWI to believe what they (it) want to believe and the right of the court to issue findings that the conduct of TWI is rightfully subject to sanction/penalty when said conduct violates law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
DWBH, you said you had been deposed. I'm wondering if you have a copy of any affidavit [deposition] you made and which you can attach. You were not a party to the proceedings, merely a witness, so the gag order would not apply to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Rocky, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the definition of a strawman or even a snowman. But saying someone is full of baloney is like asking whether you have a law degree from Ball St.? However, since this case was settled out of court many years ago...and no guilt was admitted, after all has been said and done who do you think really won?
"...is a reasonable representation of the distinction the court made between the right of TWI to believe what they (it) want to believe and the right of the court to issue findings that the conduct of TWI is rightfully subject to sanction/penalty when said conduct violates law."
Sounds like TWI got off with nothing more than a little negative publicity and some legal fees??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Taken from the clip of Reynolds v. .1 IS, 98 U. S. 145 (1878) that was quoted, I'd assume it's based on a simple interpretation of our Constitution. The Declaration of Independence kinda has that ring to it in spots. I agree with the statement I quoted completely.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
I have to go back and read a whole lot more, but just want to post while I'm thinking of certain things.
The "compartment thinking" is very interesting to me especially since I think I was a master!
Geisha, wow, that was great. Peddling the Word is a fine description. What you said about causing one to stumble really touched my heart more than you can ever realize.
Don, I copied something I loved from your opening post:
"The Court finds that an important distinction exists between belief and conduct. The beliefs espoused by The Way, and its members, are not subject to review by this Court. The conduct of The Way, and its members, is subject to reasonable regulation designed to protect a compelling state interest. The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution cannot be used to protect The Way, or its members, against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order and morals of society."
Excellent. Thank you, Court.
I'll have to keep reading the posts on here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Ive been trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to say the same thing for years but the ears are deaf. (which was also something Wierwille taught).
The argument seems to be along the lines of -"Well if a chemisrty teacher was a mass murderer it doesnt negate the chemical formulas that he taught" or something along those lines.
The obvious difference is that Christianity is not a formula which is being taught but a lifestyle.
Any buffoon with a pulse who can read-- can read me scripture verses whether they believe it or they dont....big deal...
Ive had crackheads read me bible verses --so what--no matter where in the bible they decide to read or "teach"--the main thing lesson that I hear from them is that crack is alright---The same goes for Wierwille
Wierwilles attitude, self centeredness hardheartedness, deception, paranoia, narcissism all come through in his jumble of "teachings" --Its the major effing point!
His "failures" are bound together and generate out of his mish mosh theology and teachings.
Can you say Jesus is Lord? Can you say Pea Soup?
Who cares? Anybody can, I dont consider him valuable simply because who knew how to read. I can do that on my own.
The dark spirit that underlayed and infused his teaching was enough to make any of the "scriptural "part of highly questionable and negligible worth.
Seeing what it brought, and for what it was, its best to get rid of the whole sordid mess, and if anyone has any christian yearning--- start again from scratch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Well, it's an interesting topic running here, to be sure. "Freedom of speech" - the Way's right to hold beliefs and speak them is a different topic. I'm not personally addressing this thread topic in that light, as I don't think that's what the thread topic is or was meant to address. As mstart just posted, anyone can hold any belief they choose, teach any version of the bible they wish to generate. It's not the belief, or even the way I personally choose to live it which others may disagree with - it's the conduct, the actions people and how they effect others that the court statements quoted appear to be addressing.
Back to what you clipped exmiska - "The Court finds that an important distinction exists between belief and conduct. "
The Court finds that an important distinction exists between belief and conduct. The beliefs espoused by The Way, and its members, are not subject to review by this Court. The conduct of The Way, and its members, is subject to reasonable regulation designed to protect a compelling state interest. The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution cannot be used to protect The Way, or its members, against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order and morals of society."
A section worth repeating even again, methinks.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Perhaps someone should start a thread about Rosie and her involvement in the sex scandals?...the court records show that she knew what was going on?...put her feet to the fire.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Excathedra,
Your dignity inspires-so right back at ya sister!
Sunesis,
Ain't it the truth. Step away from the light, I mean the church.
WOW! Been years since I have played "Bible Gotcha" Seems to be a still viable sport with some here. The twisted logic and double speak remind me of the "Good Old Days" when I used to hit people upside the head with scripture. I guess I just don't have the stomach for it anymore.
I am rusty and now lack the talent to twist and turn those words to wound.
Er, I mean expound.
Sorry, don't mean to derail or get
These little emoticons are sooo cute!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Rocky, I just realized you said what I wrote a bit ago. Ha! Thanks, that sums up at least what I posted. Beliefs and conduct are/were being treated differently by the courts in those statements, as they should be I think. Freedom of speech in Japan wasn't mentioned that I saw, so I'll leave that to another thread topic, those informed on that topic and who are interested in posting to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Any statement claiming to characterize the penalty or sanctions or anything else that adversely impacted TWI -- unless accompanied by or arising from an actual knowledge of said penalty, etc., is an empty assumption.
You're free to assume whatever you want about what it cost them. As usual, however, you appear to be speaking from an overwhelming lack of insight.
absolutely!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
On first blush, you are assuming that what vp taught in pfal was scriptural. That debate is on going and far from settled. With respect to the teacher's ungodly behavior calling into question what he taught, the following well known passages come quickly to mind:
By their fruits you shall know them.
Jesus didn't spend a lot of time criticizing people for what they believed but he sharply rebuked ungodly religious leaders for what they DID.
Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees
Jesus criticized the Pharisees not so much their understanding of scripture but by their application of it and it made their converts a two-fold more a child of hell than they were themselves.
Wolves in sheeps clothing
If a wolf says "baa, baa", he is still a wolf. By the way, many sheep in twi ignored warning and paid the price for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
oenie !!!! i love you, how have you been ? i know i have to catch up and that your son is the most awesome person
-
-
-
-
unscriptural conduct does not negate scriptural truth
i don't know but that sounds like howdy doody time or twilight zone or some world where i don't live -- or want to live
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.