TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND THE "NOT-SO-AMERICAN" WAY INTERNATIONAL

[now I see]

Accordingly, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that sexual misconduct by clergy is not protected by any claim of First Amendment privilege.........Similarly, a religious organization can be held liable for failing to protect its members from the sexual assaults of its employees.........The Court finds that Craig Martindale's sexual encounters with Mrs. Allen must be considered as conduct, rather than beliefs."

I wonder what the satute of limitations are in Ohio for sexual assaults from twi employees? Or if there are other areas twi can be held liable for not protecting their members from twi employees?

[polar bear]

Love it. The leaven spoils the whole loaf.

And that was my point.

That the MOGs bad practice was a result of corruption in their thinking and affected the whole. If bad thinking is not checked it doesn't get better it gets worse. Soon they were doing more and more to cover for their actions which resulted in the increased regulatory and judgmental action as pointed out in socks post. (great stuff socks)

Example, they thought they were better than everyone, they thought they could do no wrong.

Pride, pride, pride which did affect those around them and still lingers in those who are have themselves locked into their way of thinking.

[WhiteDove]

hello fellow greasespotters!

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 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. 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.

WOW TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND AMERICAN WAY That sounds like something the bird would say....Oh wait he did. Glad to see my post inspired you Mr. Tongue Man, not bad for a morally repugnant, intellectually vapid, psychologically unsound, rife with logical fallacies, contentious, malignantly opinionated, and mean-spirited.... post. Oh wait I see you went back edited that inspired part out of you post.

Upon reading the snips of judge John D.Schmitt that you provided it appears to me that he correctly ruled that The right to believe is absolute. The right to act is subject to reasonable regulation. I concur with his ruling They are two separate things, belief of truth and actions are not one in the same. I think a few of us have been saying that for awhile around here. We absolutely have the right to believe and accept scriptural truth despite or regardless of any good or bad actions by the speaker. Actions of the speaker while subject to civil law as they should be ,do not however change the truth of scripture or earthly knowledge one can learn from their words into untruth. If one beats his dog does that make 2+2 not equal 4, hardly, if one is morally unsound does that change by magic the truth of the scripture , Doubtful.

Now another issue as some have brought before us is....... does it change they way one might or might not accept what the person is saying? I believe that most of us agree that it could affect the believability of such a message, but that is not one in the same as nullify the message. It may to the hearer , that is the choice of each hearer, but the truth of the message still none the less is intact regardless of the opinion of each hearer. Another words one may not accept that 2+2 =4 from a immoral person ,but that fact remains that it does not change the truth that it does equal 4. It only prevents the hearer from accepting and believing the truth due to their actions. Another may not care about their actions, they may just want to learn math and so to them the lesson is learnable despite the moral state of the teacher. Scripture is not dependant on the teachers actions either Christians accept it as so because God declares it so ,in spite of mans actions. I think that is the message of Romans (Good for us......) I think we all understand that one should be living the words we speak, as best as we are able. But when we don't it does not make the words of the scripture untrue.

The judge rightly rules

The United States Supreme Court has specifically held that while laws cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices.

Accordingly, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that sexual misconduct by clergy is not protected by any claim of First Amendment privilege.

Clearly he understands that belief of truth and actions are in fact two different things. I think the bird has said that as well. VP's actions are subject to a legal ruling as any other person, their fair day in court. A real one not the kangaroo court of the internet. As such that ruling would be binding ,and proof of burden, "in essence truth" regarding the matter. Trouble is we seem to be missing any case number where that happened. As such we then can conclude that we have no case, or ruling to establish guilt or innocence to refer to. In short no legal ruling. As such it is not documented.

it is my opinion that, the conduct of these hypocritical "whited sepulchers" 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!

And you are entitled to such, but that makes it what it is an opinion only not truth. Others may have differing opinions, they are not truth either.

As the good judge pointed out in his wisdom, actions by a person are independent of what they believe, actions do not affect belief, truth, teaching, or many other things, but they are accountable however under law. I concur with this ruling as well.

I think I have through the years been an advocate of a day in court, due process of law to establish guilt or innocence for the alleged offender.

[waysider]

The judge rightly rules

.

As the good judge pointed out in his wisdom, actions by a person are independent of what they believe, actions do not affect belief, truth, teaching, or many other things, but they are accountable however under law. I concur with this ruling as well.

I think I have through the years been an advocate of a day in court, due process of law to establish guilt or innocence for the alleged offender.

I must have missed that part that I highlighted. <_<

[WhiteDove]

I must have missed that part that I highlighted. <_<

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.

He clearly separated beliefs and conduct as two separate things, he made no reference to conduct changing scriptural truth. or any truth for that matter. And rightly so he realized that conduct is what it is good or bad. neither changes beliefs of scripture physical actions do not change beliefs, or scriptural truth.

[waysider]

Now you're talking gibberish.

Where did the judge say or even imply "actions do not affect belief, truth, teaching and many other things"?

As a matter of fact, that statement is in direct contradiction to the Dealing With The Adversary class where it was taught that if we change our undesired actions, our thinking will follow suit. If I'm not mistaken, I think this was also covered in The Renewed Mind and Advanced Class.

[rhino]

He clearly separated beliefs and conduct as two separate things, he made no reference to conduct changing scriptural truth. or any truth for that matter. And rightly so he realized that conduct is what it is good or bad. neither changes beliefs of scripture physical actions do not change beliefs, or scriptural truth.

I don't know how you know what he realized ...

It seems a simple separation as far as the court's involvement is concerned. There is NAMBLA ... the man boy love association ... they can believe what they want, but they can't legally act on their belief.

The judge didn't make any statement about whether actions influence belief or vice versa. But rationalization and human nature indicate it is quite feasible/probable that vp's and lcm's desires influenced their doctrine ... eg. thinking that adultery was only in the spiritual realm, but was fine for MOG's in the physical.

Or what about all the "abundant sharing" teaching? A desire for money leading to a teaching that "sharing" meant sending all the money to VP. He seldom/never saw fit to "share" in reverse with people with genuine needs in the "field".

Bias is human nature and is prevalent in all thought processes, though denial is also present. But then I don't have the ability to read the judge's mind, so that is just my view.

[Oakspear]

What DWBH has said is that ungodly actions negate scriptural truth as spoken by the one doing the acting, not that scriptural truth itself is negated.

Wierwille didn't just read the bible out loud in his classes and teachings, he provided a context and an interpretation to what he read.

Like the example of Satan quoting scripture that other posters have brought up, Satan accurately quoted the bible, but was his interpretation, that Jesus should therefore cast himself off the pinnacle of the temple or turn stones into bread "truth"?

Continuing to pick through Wierwille's teachings for truth is like looking for a sandwich in the trash bin.

[doojable]

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 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. 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).

The courts are bound by the Constitution to maintain Freedom of Religion, however they have determined the need to limit the actions that stem from those beliefs.

A group may believe in animal and/or human sacrifice - but they are not allowed to act on that belief here in the US.

Similarly, the actions of sexual misconduct stemmed from a belief. The judge merely separated the belief from the act. He never condoned those beliefs - he merely stated that the court could not review them. The state only had jurisdiction over the act.

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.

If a man beats his dog it indicates his belief that it's OKAY to beat dogs. He teaches that belief to his children - by example and possibly by his words ("Dogs are just property. I'm doing with my property as I see fit.")

Now suppose he's so convinced a group of people that he's right about this dog-beating thing and they not only cover for him but actively go out and find dogs for him. They are acting in concert on a belief! That's a conspiracy.

The reason that TWI's beliefs even had to be addressed and separated from the acts of LCM, RFR and RB is because a religious belief, a belief protected by the US Constitution, was at the core.

Religious beliefs of this nature are more insidious IMO. They pretend that there is a higher power that sanctions the acts that we as mere mortals are smart enough to have deemed wrong.

But as George Carlin pointed out, there's that, "You have to wanna" aspect to sin. If a person really wants something badly enough they will find a way to make it seem OKAY - they will build a belief system - and if you can get Holy Sanction! - WOW you've hit paydirt.

So, Bubba goes out and buys himself a Doctorate of Divinity. Now he's Dr. Bubba. He starts teaching a class. In this class he starts to add the seeds of what it would take for him to beat his dog in peace. He gets others to believe that they are more spiritual that all the other mortal mooks on this earth who are unenlightened in the ways of dog-beating. He teaches a "select few" of them to beat their dogs with reckless abandon. Now he has an inner circle of "spiritually elite dog-beaters" who have learned to keep these beliefs in a lock-box because "the world would never understand and Satan would try to stop the truth about dog-beating." (Most important of all... Dr Bubba has a group that will rally 'round and protect his right to beat his dog- even at their own expense. He's protected. He's safe.... that's really all that matters. )

These dog-beating believers have a mission - a holy sanctified mission! - protect the truth at all costs! Gawd is counting on YOU! He has no hands but your hands with which to beat dogs.

If you let this great truth out the world would never understand. (They never get it!) The Devil will win and the Anti-Christ will be ushered in. OMG! - don't let that happen! Keep your trap shut! Loose lips sink ships! Arghhhhhhhhhh!

When it comes to "truth" taught by VP - it's fruit of the poisonous tree IMO. The whole thing was interlaced with the underlying belief that would lead to sanctioning some evil acts.

It's no different than the Devil quoting scripture to Jesus in order to trick him into doing something that the Devil wanted him to do. "Hey Jesus! Jump off this high place - the angels will catch you! It is written... really...come on... you believe don't you?... Forget it, maybe you just can't handle it spiritually. Maybe you're not the Messiah after all. If you had real leadership ability you'd be able to act on the Word..."

Sound familar?

Edited June 29, 2008 by doojable

[doojable]

He clearly separated beliefs and conduct as two separate things, he made no reference to conduct changing scriptural truth. or any truth for that matter. And rightly so he realized that conduct is what it is good or bad. neither changes beliefs of scripture physical actions do not change beliefs, or scriptural truth.

He never made any reference to "scriptural truth" at all. He said the State has no jurisdiction over religious beliefs, but they do over actions stemming from those beliefs.

He also never said that conduct doesn't change beliefs.

Do we need to start adding "Reading with a Purpose" questions to posts?

[chockfull]

That section where it says that "with their lips they do worship me but their heart is far from me..."

If that doesn't describe RFR and her ilk - what does?

Does this statement tie in to the "Her Holy Hermaphrodites" thread? Becuase I must tell you I just got this "ewwwwwwwwwww" feeling.

I really don't want to know about what RFR does with her lips.

[doojable]

Does this statement tie in to the "Her Holy Hermaphrodites" thread? Becuase I must tell you I just got this "ewwwwwwwwwww" feeling.

I really don't want to know about what RFR does with her lips.

I wasn't going there.

[waysider]

Og Mandino, Zigg Ziggler, Charles "Tremendous" Jones, Dale Carnegie----------------->

I feel TREMENDOUS!

"If I act excited, I'll be excited!

"Fake it until you make it."

Remember all that stuff and how we had to read and try to apply it so that our actions would generate the "proper" mind set?

(Act first and your thinking will follow suit.)

What's that you say? It's not the same as scripture?

BINGO!

That's because we weren't being trained as spokesmen and women for God, we were being molded as salesmen and women for PLAF (The Wonder Class)

-----------------------------------------------------

Attention all PLAF (The Wonder Class) sales reps!

The product has been recalled for serious defects

Repeat

The product has been recalled.

[geisha779]

He clearly separated beliefs and conduct as two separate things, he made no reference to conduct changing scriptural truth. or any truth for that matter. And rightly so he realized that conduct is what it is good or bad. neither changes beliefs of scripture physical actions do not change beliefs, or scriptural truth.

We have a judge and he DOES make such a distinction.

If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine CONFORMING TO GODLINESS, he is CONCEITED and UNDERSTANDS NOTHING; but he has a MORBID interest in controversial questions and DISPUTES ABOUT WORDS, out of which ARISE ENVY, STRIFE, ABUSIVE language, EVIL SUSPICIONS, and constant FRICTION between men of DEPRAVED mind and DEPRIVED of the TRUTH. 1Tim 6 3-5

Conforming to Godliness:does NOT include sexual abuse-drinking(Drambuie anyone?), smoking(got the beanbag ashtray and Kool shorties?),

abortion, abusive language, foul language, and on we go. . . . . .

Concieted: Man of God for our day and time(Choke)

Understands nothing: Those collaterals come to mind---- not to mention JCING

Morbid: Advanced Class need I say more?

Disputes about Words: I am now laughing--throughly/thoroughly-My God My God why hast though forsaken me-I could go on. . . .

Envy/Strife/Abusive language--Ever hear a Sunday Night Service

Evil Suspicions: Seed boys and a devil spirit under every rock or in most questioning believers

Friction-Depraved--LOL

Behavior does separate one from scriptural truth.(Actual Scriptural truth, not the free-love doctrine of VP the Ohio Huckster)

WD -- Your arguments while verbose are ridiculous. Men like VP et al do not accept sound healthy teaching. They advocate a different doctrine and they reject doctrine conforming to Godliness

Teaching not based on scripture will always result in a life that is UNHOLY and is marked by sin. These men usually have known the truth and walked away.

They are predators. They can fill their bathtubs full, but cannot walk on water.

VP will have his day in court. I don't want to be standing next to him shoring up his "Ministry" on that day. I think I will just stay on my knees before a HOLY God.

[mstar1]

When it comes to "truth" taught by VP - it's fruit of the poisonous tree IMO. The whole thing was interlaced with the underlying belief that would lead to sanctioning some evil acts.

i havent got anything to say that hasnt been said 22,000 times already from every conceivable angle.

It doesnt really seem all that hard to fathom that "doctrine" leads to "practice".

If the practice is foul, the doctrine is at the very best highly suspect (...by their fruit ye shall know them..).

Are the simplest things really that hard to comprehend WD?

Wierwilles acts were repugnant because the doctrine ( I am NOT going to use your phrase "scriptural truth" in regards to anything he taught) was foul.

His acts point directly to the holes in his doctrine and the lack of real consistant truth in them.

The whole kit and kaboodle of his teachings imo was a mish mosh to allow him to live out his control fantasies and perversions.

When you look at the results ,the assumption that he taught any genuine "scriptural truth" at all is highly questionable

WD keeps using the 1+1 example...is it really that hard to add this concept up? that 1+1 really does equal 2?

Edited June 29, 2008 by mstar1

[DontWorryBeHappy]

evidently, as that old adage says, "old habits are hard to break"...............

whitedove said....."WOW TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND AMERICAN WAY That sounds like something the bird would say....Oh wait he did. Glad to see my post inspired you Mr. Tongue Man, not bad for a morally repugnant, intellectually vapid, psychologically unsound, rife with logical fallacies, contentious, malignantly opinionated, and mean-spirited.... post. Oh wait I see you went back edited that inspired part out of you post. "...........actually, "the bird" simply reminded me of the opening of the old 50's tv series "superman", with george reeves, which is where i first heard the phrase, "truth, justice, and the american way"........maybe the first place "the bird" heard it too?...........i did not edit my post #130 on the "lingo" thread you must be referring to.........it's still there, exactly as it's been since i first posted it!..............as i said, old habits are hard for "the bird" to break!

"the bird" said,....."Upon reading the snips of judge John D.Schmitt that you provided it appears to me that he correctly ruled that The right to believe is absolute. The right to act is subject to reasonable regulation. I concur with his ruling They are two separate things, belief of truth and actions are not one in the same. I think a few of us have been saying that for awhile around here. We absolutely have the right to believe and accept scriptural truth despite or regardless of any good or bad actions by the speaker. Actions of the speaker while subject to civil law as they should be ,do not however change the truth of scripture or earthly knowledge one can learn from their words into untruth. If one beats his dog does that make 2+2 not equal 4, hardly, if one is morally unsound does that change by magic the truth of the scripture."

two "bad habits" common to "the bird's" discussion style are again glaringly apparent in this one paragraph...........the logical fallacy known as "attacking the straw man", and the flagrant revision of facts or statements which setting up "the straw man" requires!................the first 2 sentences of this paragraph actually reflect accurately what judge schmitt wrote in the final decree as posted on the greasespot homepage.....the 3rd sentence reflects that "the bird" has corrected his use of the word "concur"..........i'm glad that the judge's decree agrees with "the bird's" legal accumen!............then, the first revision occurs as "the bird" begins gathering his straw.............the judge NEVER WROTE "belief of truth and actions are not one in the same".................what he did write was "The Court finds that an important distinction exists between belief and conduct" .......somehow, "the bird" revised the judge's actual statement by arbitrarily adding the words "of truth" to what the judge wrote!........the judge NEVER PRESUMED to throw out an opinion as to what "TRUTH" is when pointing out the distinction between "belief and conduct"! that is a presumption typically made by the vic apologists.....that is, that "mere religious beliefs and opinions" along with, and including, "The beliefs espoused by The Way" are beliefs or opinions "of truth"!.........that is a presumption which neither judge schmitt nor i agree with nor accept!...........it is, however, a presumption, interpretation, and opinion absolutely necessary for the bird to make in order to build his "straw man"!!

the rest of the paragraph is now uselessly spent in "the bird's" attempt to tear down the "straw man " fallacy he's built for himself to attack!....."I think a few of us have been saying that for awhile around here. We absolutely have the right to believe and accept scriptural truth despite or regardless of any good or bad actions by the speaker. Actions of the speaker while subject to civil law as they should be ,do not however change the truth of scripture or earthly knowledge one can learn from their words into untruth. If one beats his dog does that make 2+2 not equal 4, hardly, if one is morally unsound does that change by magic the truth of the scripture.Doubtful"..........yes, a few of you have been tearing down this same "straw man" argument around here for years!!.........no one has ever argued your "right" to accept vic's interpretation, or opinions of the bible as "scriptural truth"........some just take offence at your expectation that the rest of us, along with the rest of christendom, should also accept it as such, and that we are somehow "wrong before god" for not accepting those same interpretations and opinions of the bible you presume to be "scriptural truth"!!

"the bird's" debate with himself now continues building and tearing down the "straw man" that's been hangin' around the twi cornfield of "scriuptural truth" for so many years!........"Now another issue as some have brought before us is....... does it change they way one might or might not accept what the person is saying? I believe that most of us agree that it could affect the believability of such a message, but that is not one in the same as nullify the message. It may to the hearer , that is the choice of each hearer, but the truth of the message still none the less is intact regardless of the opinion of each hearer. Another words one may not accept that 2+2 =4 from a immoral person ,but that fact remains that it does not change the truth that it does equal 4. It only prevents the hearer from accepting and believing the truth due to their actions. Another may not care about their actions, they may just want to learn math and so to them the lesson is learnable despite the moral state of the teacher. Scripture is not dependant on the teachers actions either Christians accept it as so because God declares it so ,in spite of mans actions. I think that is the message of Romans (Good for us......) I think we all understand that one should be living the words we speak, as best as we are able. But when we don't it does not make the words of the scripture untrue"

it is a well-known historical fact, that prior to the letter to FDR from albert einstein, in which al strongly encouraged the president to begin what was to be called "the manhattan project", (that was the US's top secret devolpment program for the atomic bomb).........hitler's nazi physicists and engineers, many of whom were among the most renowned "teachers" of these subjects in the world at that time, were well on their way to developing their own such weapon!........many of the world's leading physicists and engineers were busily at work for the third reich in the development of nuclear weaponry........i, for one, am most certainly glad that einstein, oppenheimer, and others "cared enough" about the immoral, evil, "actions" of those nazis, and refused to "learn" their physics and engineering from them, or join their nazi leaders, because they "just wanted to learn" from them how to build the bomb!!............. "the bird's" paragraph as quoted above, is, imo, just another myopic argument in support of the logically false premise he "snuck in" with his 2nd paragraph!

more from "the bird"....."The judge rightly rules

QUOTEThe United States Supreme Court has specifically held that while laws cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices. QUOTEAccordingly, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that sexual misconduct by clergy is not protected by any claim of First Amendment privilege.Clearly he understands that belief of truth and actions are in fact two different things. I think the bird has said that as well. VP's actions are subject to a legal ruling as any other person, their fair day in court. A real one not the kangaroo court of the internet. As such that ruling would be binding ,and proof of burden, "in essence truth" regarding the matter. Trouble is we seem to be missing any case number where that happened. As such we then can conclude that we have no case, or ruling to establish guilt or innocence to refer to. In short no legal ruling. As such it is not documented."

clearly, the judge DOES NOT!............. there's that requisite "straw man"- building revision again!..........judge schmitt wrote nothing of the sort!...............again, the judge wrote, "The Court finds that an important distinction exists between belief and conduct" .........no "belief of truth and actions are in fact two different things" in what judge schmitt decreed!!!...............the rest of the paragraph just sits there!......like a duck!........excuse me, a dove!.............interesting how "the bird" keeps trying to mention vic and "truth" in the same opinionated context!..........it's difficult to link two completely incompatible things together as if there is some positive connection between them!........but, as the faithful vic apologist that he is,.........the words of pete seeger come to mind here, "knee deep in the big muddy and the damn fool marches on"!

finally, "the bird" concludes his lesson in logical fallacy with, " As the good judge pointed out in his wisdom, actions by a person are independent of what they believe, actions do not affect belief, truth, teaching, or many other things, but they are accountable however under law. I concur with this ruling as well.

I think I have through the years been an advocate of a day in court, due process of law to establish guilt or innocence for the alleged offender."

yet again, the judge pointed out no such thing!.........another interpolation from the dove!...........actions most certainly do affect "belief, truth, teaching" and the "many other things" "the bird" arbitrarily adds to what is, in fact, an entirely objective, sound decree, written by a trained professional!................a public document "the bird" subjected to yet another hatchet-job of illogic, misinterpretation, and acutely biased personal opinion................one more incredible example of what "the bird" accepts and promotes in his version of "truth, justice, and the american way".................WOW ALRIGHT!!!...................another typical dose of "love from da dove" presented in his oh-so-familiar posting style!.......................................peace.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Don'tWorryBeHappy

[dmiller]

Dang!!!

:B)

[excathedra]

thank you so much for most of the posts here

who the hell is the bird ?

[excathedra]

--

i have been very very -- i don't know the word -- comforted, that's it -- by the talk of jesus and leven

[now I see]

The reason why people object to serial rapists and adulterers being their minister is the same reason why parents object to pedifiles and rapists teaching their children in schools.  

If sexual practice had no bearing on teaching, or belief, there would be no problem with this.

[WhiteDove]

He never made any reference to "scriptural truth" at all. He said the State has no jurisdiction over religious beliefs, but they do over actions stemming from those beliefs.

He also never said that conduct doesn't change beliefs.

Do we need to start adding "Reading with a Purpose" questions to posts?

Exactly .....beliefs I don't think he figured that he needed to list everyone , or that he could . the belief in the Bible as scriptural truth is a belief That means when John D.Schmitt said The right to believe is absolute. The right to act is subject to reasonable regulation. They are two separate things, belief of scriptural truth ( which is a belief) and actions are not one in the same. We absolutely have the right to believe and accept scriptural truth despite or regardless of any good or bad actions by the speaker. Actions of the speaker while subject to civil law as they should be ,do not however change the truth of scripture or earthly knowledge one can learn from their words into untruth.

[WhiteDove]

The reason why people object to serial rapists and adulterers being their minister is the same reason why parents object to pedifiles and rapists teaching their children in schools.  

If sexual practice had no bearing on teaching, or belief, there would be no problem with this.

This has nothing to do with teaching. A sexual predator can teach truth as well as anyone else. his moral conduct does not prevent him form speaking on any subject. Again you are talking about a separate issue how his speaking is received. that will differ with the listener. Some may be willing to overlook moral faults to gain information. I went to my mechanic this week to see about a car problem, I did not ask or care about his moral life I just wanted to gain his expertise in automotive work. If he was a rapist or a saint the information that he had to offer me was the same his actions did not change the information.

[doojable]

Exactly .....beliefs I don't think he figured that he needed to list everyone , or that he could .

Everyone? Whom are you referring to?

We absolutely have the right to believe and accept scriptural truth despite or regardless of any good or bad actions by the speaker. Actions of the speaker while subject to civil law as they should be ,do not however change the truth of scripture or earthly knowledge one can learn from their words into untruth.

So we have the right to decide what we believe.... so what? BFD.

The point is that actions not only follow beliefs, they also teach how to use said beliefs.

Did you just decide to ignore the more cogent statements made in the previous posts? So you just pick and choose the easy points and hope no one will notice?

So a sexual predator can teach correct doctrine..

Let's say that sexual predator is teaching your young teenage kids Sex Ed. in Health class? Are you really trying to tell me that his vices aren't going to color what he teaches? Suppose that teacher is a great guy, a coach, beloved by all the students and he's even taught 99% of the information correctly - but with a slight slant in favor of his POV. It's a nearly imperceptible difference and most people wouldn't catch it. Then suppose he takes a boy aside and says, "Hey, I teach this stuff, I wouldn't lie to you. Come on up to my apt and I'll give you a private lesson."

He's used the accurate information to help gain trust. He's used his reputation to gain access. He's still lying and ultimately is trying to promote his lusts through his teaching. He's going to put forth that his actions are correct and he's going to justify it with words that have nothing to do with truth.

Didn't you ever hear that poem about seeing a sermon instead of hearing one?

"Actions speak louder than words."

[WhiteDove]

i havent got anything to say that hasnt been said 22,000 times already from every conceivable angle.

It doesnt really seem all that hard to fathom that "doctrine" leads to "practice".

If the practice is foul, the doctrine is at the very best highly suspect (...by their fruit ye shall know them..).

Are the simplest things really that hard to comprehend WD?

Not true pure fabrication... , one can have right doctrine and fail to heed it.

Ephesians 4:25

Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

For a Christian this is doctrine and yet people lie all the time, it does not make the doctrine wrong only the person

Wierwilles acts were repugnant because the doctrine ( I am NOT going to use your phrase "scriptural truth" in regards to anything he taught) was foul.

Most Christians accept the Bible as scriptural triuth when and where anyone shares it including VP , as he did. It is simply truth from the Bible Bible verses are not subject to personal sin. They can not be foul when shared .

His acts point directly to the holes in his doctrine and the lack of real consistant truth in them.

The whole kit and kaboodle of his teachings imo was a mish mosh to allow him to live out his control fantasies and perversions.

When you look at the results ,the assumption that he taught any genuine "scriptural truth" at all is highly questionable

WD keeps using the 1+1 example...is it really that hard to add this concept up? that 1+1 really does equal 2?

I see plenty of results from his teaching. In fact given the number of people that were involved in the Way I'd lay odds that far more than the ones here would say that they have benifited than have not.

[WhiteDove]

Everyone? Whom are you referring to?

every one (every belief) Your point was that scriptural truth was not mentioned it was as a belief he just did not list every one specifically he included all beliefs in the word beliefs .

So we have the right to decide what we believe.... so what? BFD.

The point is that actions not only follow beliefs, they also teach how to use said beliefs.

They don't always do so sometimes we believe one thing and do another we are human

Did you just decide to ignore the more cogent statements made in the previous posts? So you just pick and choose the easy points and hope no one will notice?

So a sexual predator can teach correct doctrine..

Let's say that sexual predator is teaching your young teenage kids Sex Ed. in Health class? Are you really trying to tell me that his vices aren't going to color what he teaches? Suppose that teacher is a great guy, a coach, beloved by all the students and he's even taught 99% of the information correctly - but with a slight slant in favor of his POV. It's a nearly imperceptible difference and most people wouldn't catch it. Then suppose he takes a boy aside and says, "Hey, I teach this stuff, I wouldn't lie to you. Come on up to my apt and I'll give you a private lesson."

He's used the accurate information to help gain trust. He's used his reputation to gain access. He's still lying and ultimately is trying to promote his lusts through his teaching. He's going to put forth that his actions are correct and he's going to justify it with words that have nothing to do with truth.

It is quite possible to teach scripture from a bible and not color anything. I can invent a story where that happens as well your story proves nothing

Didn't you ever hear that poem about seeing a sermon instead of hearing one?

"Actions speak louder than words."

So they speak louder ? But words still speak none the less........

Edited June 30, 2008 by WhiteDove