I get what you are saying, but that is not what Dr. Juedes said. He wrote "the fact that core Way teachings can so easily be used to promote immorality is a good indication that those Way teachings are false, too." He is saying that because someone uses, for example, the seven administrations to excuse adultery, that the seven administrations teaching is false.
Folks, that is asinine, ridiculous logic!
The seven administrations teaching should stand or fall on its own, irrespective of how it is used, or the behavior of those who use it!
Conversely, here is an example of the seven administrations teaching being used to show that adultery in the grace administration is wrong. It is from John Schoenheit's adultery paper "Appendix A."
John shows from the seven administrations teaching that believers in the Grace Administration are not allowed to have more than one wife, and they are not allowed to "sleep around" either.
So if the seven administrations are false based upon the immoral behavior of some, or encourage adultery, how would you explain the above??
I agree with oldiesman the main problem was not the administrations but VPW.
Also Jesus Christ made us free (Romans 10:9 and 10) and nothing changes that, and TWI teaches us to live the Word, to not sin.
Also sex out marriage was confronted in many categories, also from LCM, he confronted the teens that had sex during the Rock of Ages 94 and during the Rock 95 every body was watching to avoid this sin.
Many way followers did not know about what really happened with Chris Geer, why they were confronting the board of trusties of that time. For example we in Mexico Just know that the ministry has divided because the Board was not living the word. Just that, no more explanations.
What opens the problem was the Internet and LCM sues. WayDayle, Greasespot and also John Lynn Letter. John Schoenheit paper.
VPW thought that you can have rightly dividing of the word in one category and be wrong in other. The baby and the bath water of John Lynn. We can not dismiss all TWI theology just because VPW was devil spirit possessed, or Bullinger and Leonard and the other were also sexual predators? No.
Rosie Riverbark was just as close to VPW as LCM. But we do not know if she has sex with him or with LCM or with other, or if she promotes these things. We know that she confront LCM about that. Or maybe she does and thats why she has now more guy in the board to meet theÃr sexual needs and live TWI sex doctrine.
As I see it, part of the problem in this discussion is the manner in which we are using the word "theology".
In the context of this discussion, I believe we are referring to a particular comprehensive system of beliefs that Wierwille employed at a practical level. Individual parts of the whole may have been fine. But the whole package is contaminated by the parts that are not. Consider for a moment the current health concerns with tainted peanut butter. Is every ounce of that peanut butter tainted? Doubtful. But how do you extract the salmonella by itself and leave the peanut butter intact? Like a friend of mine is fond of saying, "You can't separate flea poop from pepper." The parts of Wierwille's belief system that promoted this thinking are like the flea poop in the pepper. They contaminate the whole system.He used the whole pepper shaker to spice his daily living standards. The pepper, though it may not itself have been contaminated, served as a vehicle to deliver the flea poop.Therefore, as a whole, his theology (belief and practices system) is hopelessly flawed.
does anyone know with whom/when the dogma regarding David's sin originated? the one where David didn't sin in seducing (or raping, the record isn't clear) another man's wife, since all the women of the kingdom were his, but that David's only sin was in having Uriah murdered. seems like that one was a standard as far back as I can remember.
24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'
28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'
29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "
VPW , LCM and others used DECEPTION as their main tool. They consciously tested the waters to see which women were vulverable to deception. As one woman above mentioned, VP would fondle or touch their hand, or hug, or kiss a little too long and see what the reaction was. If the woman was wise enough to shut him down, he stopped, hiding his predatory intent and action. But if she seemed soft enough to be deceieved, they went on to cultivate the potential conquest.
But what is really terrible is how they used the Word of God as a tool to deceive and seduce. To any Christian, this is not just immoral (as, say, using alchohol to seduce), but also blasphemous-- using a good and godly thing to manipulate women into sex.
Was CF&S just nuetral toward promiscuity, and just misued by a few predators? Take a look at Kristen Skedgell's book and other conversations Way men and women had about sex. They always used CF&S to DEFEND promiscuity, never to oppose it. This is a good indication that Wierwille's theology and the content of the class was consciously structured to promote sex outside marriage, not to oppose it as the Bible clearly does. The theoloogy of CF&S and Wierwille was immoral at its core, but was diplomatic enough not to do it blatantly. That is what deception does-- it promotes evil indirectly, not blatantly.
what I find interesting.. that these "men" conducted themselves in such a manner, and thought consequences would never catch up with them..
I once heard a limb coordinator "counsel" a person to "just get over it, and get laid.." rather loudly at that.. loud enough to hear it, through two thick doors..
I think he's fronting an offshoot somewhere now..
what was it, that gave them no fear of God, or fear of man either?
About the closest that I ever heard to a condemnation of extramarital sex from any higher-up in TWI was when Mrs. Wierwille was in Houston as part of a leadership weekend. Someone outraight asked her if premarital sex was okay, and her response was "If the world says it's right, it probably isn't."
I think itemizing the "who" these predators are is rather enlightening..
*only* enough to count on two pairs of hands.. or is that two pairs of two pairs of hands..
1. The vicster himself..
2. the loyster, king vicster II..
3. everybody in the yak twig, except for dwbh and caballero..
4. every limb coordinator I knew, except for one..
5. corps directors.. and I pray not G*orge J*ss.. I can't see that happening, I hope he was one of the good guys.
6. almost everybody in the various presidents cabinets, either "indulgent" or *merely* complicit.. except w*lter.. and I would be really disappointed to find out he was involved.
7. "uncle" stick a liquor-soaked tongue down your throat "howie"..
limb coordinators, region coordinator, cabinet members.. corps directors.. naw, it wasn't the WHOLE ministry.. just those who ran it..
VPW , LCM and others used DECEPTION as their main tool. They consciously tested the waters to see which women were vulverable to deception. As one woman above mentioned, VP would fondle or touch their hand, or hug, or kiss a little too long and see what the reaction was. If the woman was wise enough to shut him down, he stopped, hiding his predatory intent and action. But if she seemed soft enough to be deceieved, they went on to cultivate the potential conquest.
. . .
Was lcm deceived or just a propagator of it? Didn't he really believe in what he was doing?
One would be hard-pressed, I think, to believe that the exclusion of all those anti-promiscuity scriptures was inadvertent.
George
Likewise with the in-clusion of the graphic photographs that were accompanied with comments like, "Aren't her breasts just bee-u-tee-ful!" and a lengthy list of street terms for genitalia and sex acts that he chuckled and made light of. What exactly is "neutral" about showing photographs of various shapes of penises to 13 year old girls? And just so we don't deviate too far from the theological implications, Wierwille taught that the original sin was that Eve masturbated "and did eat, and gave also to her husband with her; and he did eat." He offered no scriptural verification. He said "Father showed it to me." (paraphrased)--- "You'll just have to trust me on this one." Then he took it a step further and said that masturbation was not acceptable for married people unless it was a mutual activity, because it could not give true release from sexual tension. I guess you were supposed to read between the lines. He also said "Intercourse is always a spiritual event." Who would be a better partner in a "spiritual" experience that the MOG, himself? He was setting the stage for his future indiscretions. My point is that he deliberately gave theological significance to sexual release.
I think itemizing the "who" these predators are is rather enlightening..
*only* enough to count on two pairs of hands.. or is that two pairs of two pairs of hands..
1. The vicster himself..
2. the loyster, king vicster II..
3. everybody in the yak twig, except for dwbh and caballero..
4. every limb coordinator I knew, except for one..
5. corps directors.. and I pray not G*orge J*ss.. I can't see that happening, I hope he was one of the good guys.
6. almost everybody in the various presidents cabinets, either "indulgent" or *merely* complicit.. except w*lter.. and I would be really disappointed to find out he was involved.
7. "uncle" stick a liquor-soaked tongue down your throat "howie"..
limb coordinators, region coordinator, cabinet members.. corps directors.. naw, it wasn't the WHOLE ministry.. just those who ran it..
and.. what AMAZES me.. the new "corps" deal think I'm a heretic or something because I'd like to see some documented accountability..
When people with Biblical knowledge become involved in sin, they have to somehow reconcile the difference between what the Bible commands and their disobedience. They must repent and change, or live in guilt and hypocrisy (knowing something is sinful but doing it anyway), or convince themselves (perhaps against their own conscience) that the practice is good, not sinful.
Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, chose the latter. After he was sexually involved with many women he finally said he had a "revelation" from God addressed to his wife in which "God" approved of his adultery. It is likely that Wierwille latched onto distorted views of certain Bible passages like "to the pure all things are pure" in order to rationalize his existing sin. Likewise, his teaching that "Christians should be prosperous" was developed to satisfy his greed and materialism.
So it may well be that the current theology of The Way International came to be in order to allow the founder to have a guilt-free life of sin. It is likely that current Way theology did not come about as a result of Wierwille's search for truth, but as a result of his search for a way to feed his lust and adultery.
Joseph Smith used "revelation" to convince his followers that men could have multiple sexual partners through polygamy. While Wierwille's followers believed he taught "by revelation," they saw him primarily as a Bible teacher, not as a prophet. So Wierwille used Bible passages and Way theology as a means to get religious women to have sex with him, because this was the "language" they responded to. VP, LCM and others did not really care what the Word said on the matter- he cared what his lust said.
I think itemizing the "who" these predators are is rather enlightening..
*only* enough to count on two pairs of hands.. or is that two pairs of two pairs of hands..
1. The vicster himself..
2. the loyster, king vicster II..
2a. cgeer*, the gartmore go-getter
3. everybody in the yak twig, except for dwbh and caballero..
4. every limb coordinator I knew, except for one..
5. corps directors.. and I pray not G*orge J*ss.. I can't see that happening, I hope he was one of the good guys.
6. almost everybody in the various presidents cabinets, either "indulgent" or *merely* complicit.. except w*lter.. and I would be really disappointed to find out he was involved.
7. "uncle" stick a liquor-soaked tongue down your throat "howie"..
limb coordinators, region coordinator, cabinet members.. corps directors.. naw, it wasn't the WHOLE ministry.. just those who ran it..
Someone with inside knowledge, an eye-witness account......told me this happened at one of those corps-tels next to the corps chalet. Remember, cgeer was rarely seen with his wife.
To answer Potato's question about David and Bathsheba:
This lie originated in the foundational PFAL class. VPW taught that David's sin was NOT in having sex with another man's wife, because (he said) "all of the women in the kingdom belong to the king." He stated that David's sin was in arranging Uriah's demise because Bathsheba was pregnant with David's child. The adultery didn't matter. David was, after all, a man after God's own heart.
The implication is perfectly obvious: You can have sex with anyone you wish to and still be a man or woman after God's own heart!
"Oh, people, if you could only read it in the original!"
To answer Potato's question about David and Bathsheba:
This lie originated in the foundational PFAL class. VPW taught that David's sin was NOT in having sex with another man's wife, because (he said) "all of the women in the kingdom belong to the king." He stated that David's sin was in arranging Uriah's demise because Bathsheba was pregnant with David's child. The adultery didn't matter. David was, after all, a man after God's own heart.
The implication is perfectly obvious: You can have sex with anyone you wish to and still be a man or woman after God's own heart!
"Oh, people, if you could only read it in the original!"
What a crock of organic fertilizer!
WG
thank you, WG. I didn't remember that as being part of PFAL, but it certainly explains some things. it was a deeply engrained part of twi culture.
I wonder how Bathsheba, as Uriah's wife, reacted. no one said no to the king, so her cooperation was most certainly coerced because of his position of power, unless he took the time to seduce her. was she afraid? did she cry afterward? was what David did essentially RAPE? I think it probably was. Bathsheba didn't have a choice.
looking at Nathan's confrontation, it would certainly seem that god equated David's rape of Bathsheba to destroying something precious. in the parable, the beloved lamb was sacrificed for a feast. that implies greed and lust and a disregard for others. nice qualities in a king!
since the MOG was the modern-day spiritual equivalent of David, it must have been easy to overlook the effect on the women who were used if David's only crime was murder.
from what Nathan said, though, God saw it differently.
TWI's "ultradispensational" teaching on seven administrations (dispensations) makes Jesus' words no more authoritative than any Old Testament prophet, because his words are not to born again believers today- they are just for Israelites he spoke to before Pentecost.
This means that believers may learn from Jesus' teachings on adultery and other topics, but they are not authoritative today because "they were not addressed to us." In the same way, the dispensational view casts the same negative light on any passage that is not found in the seven "church epistles" written by the apostle Paul. It's a handy tool to easily dismiss any Bible verses found in 20 of the 27 books of the New Testament that make the Directors uncomfortable.
Did LCM (and others) deceive- or were they deceived? One indication is that they hid what they were doing from public view. They initiated people (esp women) as the lust or need arose for it. They were not just being private, they did not want to be discovered or to answer for what they were doing.
When people hide what they are doing, it is usually because they want to deceive.
They softened the words of Paul, whom they claimed to revere as well. "No inheritence in the kingdom of God" is really supposed to be a big deal.. they softened it to where the lord would just give them a little swat on the hands and deprive them of rewards or crowns.
TWI's "ultradispensational" teaching on seven administrations (dispensations) makes Jesus' words no more authoritative than any Old Testament prophet, because his words are not to born again believers today- they are just for Israelites he spoke to before Pentecost.
This means that believers may learn from Jesus' teachings on adultery and other topics, but they are not authoritative today because "they were not addressed to us." In the same way, the dispensational view casts the same negative light on any passage that is not found in the seven "church epistles" written by the apostle Paul.
Are there actions that Jesus asks people to perform that are not covered in the church epistles? Perhaps that would be something to think about. But on the topic of adultery and fornication, John Schoenheit in his paper proved from the church epistles that adultery and fornication is not permitted, so inferring that twi core teaching (seven administrations) is false because of bad behavior is folly.
Dispensationalism was contrived in the mind of Man. It's artificial. It's simply a way to compartmentalize the chronology of the Bible. Wierwille latched onto the Grace aspect of it to rationalize his abhorrent behavior. He used it as a convenient loophole to make a mockery of God. He used that and his concept of spiritual adultery along with his separation of body, soul and spirit to develop his own belief system regarding extra-marital sex . In short, he created a theological system that facilitated and excused debauchery. It was a reprehensible pattern of development.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
7
13
16
Popular Days
Feb 24
31
Feb 25
12
Feb 23
12
Mar 3
11
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 11 posts
Tzaia 7 posts
Ham 13 posts
waysider 16 posts
Popular Days
Feb 24 2009
31 posts
Feb 25 2009
12 posts
Feb 23 2009
12 posts
Mar 3 2009
11 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
Likewise with the in-clusion of the graphic photographs that were accompanied with comments like, "Aren't her breasts just bee-u-tee-ful!" and a lengthy list of street terms for genitalia and sex acts
potato
thank you, WG. I didn't remember that as being part of PFAL, but it certainly explains some things. it was a deeply engrained part of twi culture. I wonder how Bathsheba, as Uriah's wife, reacted. no
waysider
The Biblical accuracy or inaccuracy of dispensationalism is not the issue here. That is a subject for the doctrinal forum. The simple fact is that dispensationalism is a theological system. Wierwil
themex
I agree with oldiesman the main problem was not the administrations but VPW.
Also Jesus Christ made us free (Romans 10:9 and 10) and nothing changes that, and TWI teaches us to live the Word, to not sin.
Also sex out marriage was confronted in many categories, also from LCM, he confronted the teens that had sex during the Rock of Ages 94 and during the Rock 95 every body was watching to avoid this sin.
Many way followers did not know about what really happened with Chris Geer, why they were confronting the board of trusties of that time. For example we in Mexico Just know that the ministry has divided because the Board was not living the word. Just that, no more explanations.
What opens the problem was the Internet and LCM sues. WayDayle, Greasespot and also John Lynn Letter. John Schoenheit paper.
VPW thought that you can have rightly dividing of the word in one category and be wrong in other. The baby and the bath water of John Lynn. We can not dismiss all TWI theology just because VPW was devil spirit possessed, or Bullinger and Leonard and the other were also sexual predators? No.
Rosie Riverbark was just as close to VPW as LCM. But we do not know if she has sex with him or with LCM or with other, or if she promotes these things. We know that she confront LCM about that. Or maybe she does and thats why she has now more guy in the board to meet theÃr sexual needs and live TWI sex doctrine.
Edited by themexLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
As I see it, part of the problem in this discussion is the manner in which we are using the word "theology".
In the context of this discussion, I believe we are referring to a particular comprehensive system of beliefs that Wierwille employed at a practical level. Individual parts of the whole may have been fine. But the whole package is contaminated by the parts that are not. Consider for a moment the current health concerns with tainted peanut butter. Is every ounce of that peanut butter tainted? Doubtful. But how do you extract the salmonella by itself and leave the peanut butter intact? Like a friend of mine is fond of saying, "You can't separate flea poop from pepper." The parts of Wierwille's belief system that promoted this thinking are like the flea poop in the pepper. They contaminate the whole system.He used the whole pepper shaker to spice his daily living standards. The pepper, though it may not itself have been contaminated, served as a vehicle to deliver the flea poop.Therefore, as a whole, his theology (belief and practices system) is hopelessly flawed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
does anyone know with whom/when the dogma regarding David's sin originated? the one where David didn't sin in seducing (or raping, the record isn't clear) another man's wife, since all the women of the kingdom were his, but that David's only sin was in having Uriah murdered. seems like that one was a standard as far back as I can remember.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
themex
Matthew 13:24-30 (New International Version)
The Parable of the Weeds
24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'
28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'
29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
VPW , LCM and others used DECEPTION as their main tool. They consciously tested the waters to see which women were vulverable to deception. As one woman above mentioned, VP would fondle or touch their hand, or hug, or kiss a little too long and see what the reaction was. If the woman was wise enough to shut him down, he stopped, hiding his predatory intent and action. But if she seemed soft enough to be deceieved, they went on to cultivate the potential conquest.
But what is really terrible is how they used the Word of God as a tool to deceive and seduce. To any Christian, this is not just immoral (as, say, using alchohol to seduce), but also blasphemous-- using a good and godly thing to manipulate women into sex.
Was CF&S just nuetral toward promiscuity, and just misued by a few predators? Take a look at Kristen Skedgell's book and other conversations Way men and women had about sex. They always used CF&S to DEFEND promiscuity, never to oppose it. This is a good indication that Wierwille's theology and the content of the class was consciously structured to promote sex outside marriage, not to oppose it as the Bible clearly does. The theoloogy of CF&S and Wierwille was immoral at its core, but was diplomatic enough not to do it blatantly. That is what deception does-- it promotes evil indirectly, not blatantly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
what I find interesting.. that these "men" conducted themselves in such a manner, and thought consequences would never catch up with them..
I once heard a limb coordinator "counsel" a person to "just get over it, and get laid.." rather loudly at that.. loud enough to hear it, through two thick doors..
I think he's fronting an offshoot somewhere now..
what was it, that gave them no fear of God, or fear of man either?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
About the closest that I ever heard to a condemnation of extramarital sex from any higher-up in TWI was when Mrs. Wierwille was in Houston as part of a leadership weekend. Someone outraight asked her if premarital sex was okay, and her response was "If the world says it's right, it probably isn't."
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Yes, I believe that is correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
One would be hard-pressed, I think, to believe that the exclusion of all those anti-promiscuity scriptures was inadvertent.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think itemizing the "who" these predators are is rather enlightening..
*only* enough to count on two pairs of hands.. or is that two pairs of two pairs of hands..
1. The vicster himself..
2. the loyster, king vicster II..
3. everybody in the yak twig, except for dwbh and caballero..
4. every limb coordinator I knew, except for one..
5. corps directors.. and I pray not G*orge J*ss.. I can't see that happening, I hope he was one of the good guys.
6. almost everybody in the various presidents cabinets, either "indulgent" or *merely* complicit.. except w*lter.. and I would be really disappointed to find out he was involved.
7. "uncle" stick a liquor-soaked tongue down your throat "howie"..
limb coordinators, region coordinator, cabinet members.. corps directors.. naw, it wasn't the WHOLE ministry.. just those who ran it..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Was lcm deceived or just a propagator of it? Didn't he really believe in what he was doing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Likewise with the in-clusion of the graphic photographs that were accompanied with comments like, "Aren't her breasts just bee-u-tee-ful!" and a lengthy list of street terms for genitalia and sex acts that he chuckled and made light of. What exactly is "neutral" about showing photographs of various shapes of penises to 13 year old girls? And just so we don't deviate too far from the theological implications, Wierwille taught that the original sin was that Eve masturbated "and did eat, and gave also to her husband with her; and he did eat." He offered no scriptural verification. He said "Father showed it to me." (paraphrased)--- "You'll just have to trust me on this one." Then he took it a step further and said that masturbation was not acceptable for married people unless it was a mutual activity, because it could not give true release from sexual tension. I guess you were supposed to read between the lines. He also said "Intercourse is always a spiritual event." Who would be a better partner in a "spiritual" experience that the MOG, himself? He was setting the stage for his future indiscretions. My point is that he deliberately gave theological significance to sexual release.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
and.. what AMAZES me.. the new "corps" deal think I'm a heretic or something because I'd like to see some documented accountability..
two or three emails.. and all I get is silence..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
so.. I ask those who revere *doc* vic, "praise" be his name (?)..
is *this* how *we* want to do business?
honest question.. you won't find it at a vic revering offshoot or anything.
I'm waiting..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
When people with Biblical knowledge become involved in sin, they have to somehow reconcile the difference between what the Bible commands and their disobedience. They must repent and change, or live in guilt and hypocrisy (knowing something is sinful but doing it anyway), or convince themselves (perhaps against their own conscience) that the practice is good, not sinful.
Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, chose the latter. After he was sexually involved with many women he finally said he had a "revelation" from God addressed to his wife in which "God" approved of his adultery. It is likely that Wierwille latched onto distorted views of certain Bible passages like "to the pure all things are pure" in order to rationalize his existing sin. Likewise, his teaching that "Christians should be prosperous" was developed to satisfy his greed and materialism.
So it may well be that the current theology of The Way International came to be in order to allow the founder to have a guilt-free life of sin. It is likely that current Way theology did not come about as a result of Wierwille's search for truth, but as a result of his search for a way to feed his lust and adultery.
Joseph Smith used "revelation" to convince his followers that men could have multiple sexual partners through polygamy. While Wierwille's followers believed he taught "by revelation," they saw him primarily as a Bible teacher, not as a prophet. So Wierwille used Bible passages and Way theology as a means to get religious women to have sex with him, because this was the "language" they responded to. VP, LCM and others did not really care what the Word said on the matter- he cared what his lust said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Someone with inside knowledge, an eye-witness account......told me this happened at one of those corps-tels next to the corps chalet. Remember, cgeer was rarely seen with his wife.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
To answer Potato's question about David and Bathsheba:
This lie originated in the foundational PFAL class. VPW taught that David's sin was NOT in having sex with another man's wife, because (he said) "all of the women in the kingdom belong to the king." He stated that David's sin was in arranging Uriah's demise because Bathsheba was pregnant with David's child. The adultery didn't matter. David was, after all, a man after God's own heart.
The implication is perfectly obvious: You can have sex with anyone you wish to and still be a man or woman after God's own heart!
"Oh, people, if you could only read it in the original!"
What a crock of organic fertilizer!
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
thank you, WG. I didn't remember that as being part of PFAL, but it certainly explains some things. it was a deeply engrained part of twi culture.
I wonder how Bathsheba, as Uriah's wife, reacted. no one said no to the king, so her cooperation was most certainly coerced because of his position of power, unless he took the time to seduce her. was she afraid? did she cry afterward? was what David did essentially RAPE? I think it probably was. Bathsheba didn't have a choice.
looking at Nathan's confrontation, it would certainly seem that god equated David's rape of Bathsheba to destroying something precious. in the parable, the beloved lamb was sacrificed for a feast. that implies greed and lust and a disregard for others. nice qualities in a king!
since the MOG was the modern-day spiritual equivalent of David, it must have been easy to overlook the effect on the women who were used if David's only crime was murder.
from what Nathan said, though, God saw it differently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
So much slaughter of innocent lambs :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
TWI's "ultradispensational" teaching on seven administrations (dispensations) makes Jesus' words no more authoritative than any Old Testament prophet, because his words are not to born again believers today- they are just for Israelites he spoke to before Pentecost.
This means that believers may learn from Jesus' teachings on adultery and other topics, but they are not authoritative today because "they were not addressed to us." In the same way, the dispensational view casts the same negative light on any passage that is not found in the seven "church epistles" written by the apostle Paul. It's a handy tool to easily dismiss any Bible verses found in 20 of the 27 books of the New Testament that make the Directors uncomfortable.
Did LCM (and others) deceive- or were they deceived? One indication is that they hid what they were doing from public view. They initiated people (esp women) as the lust or need arose for it. They were not just being private, they did not want to be discovered or to answer for what they were doing.
When people hide what they are doing, it is usually because they want to deceive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
They softened the words of Paul, whom they claimed to revere as well. "No inheritence in the kingdom of God" is really supposed to be a big deal.. they softened it to where the lord would just give them a little swat on the hands and deprive them of rewards or crowns.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Are there actions that Jesus asks people to perform that are not covered in the church epistles? Perhaps that would be something to think about. But on the topic of adultery and fornication, John Schoenheit in his paper proved from the church epistles that adultery and fornication is not permitted, so inferring that twi core teaching (seven administrations) is false because of bad behavior is folly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Dispensationalism was contrived in the mind of Man. It's artificial. It's simply a way to compartmentalize the chronology of the Bible. Wierwille latched onto the Grace aspect of it to rationalize his abhorrent behavior. He used it as a convenient loophole to make a mockery of God. He used that and his concept of spiritual adultery along with his separation of body, soul and spirit to develop his own belief system regarding extra-marital sex . In short, he created a theological system that facilitated and excused debauchery. It was a reprehensible pattern of development.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
themex
I am with you oldiesman, one thing is one thing, and the other is the other.
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.