The idea of God covering for vpw or that some how what happened was ok because of who vp was or what he taught deeply troubles me.
In essence john is saying that God just didn`t give a crap about those who were hurt ...
If it was from God....wouldn`t it have been a safe haven, a refuge for everyone?
Come on....Where was their safe haven? Where was their refuge? Where was the deliverance for these guys?
Why would some have found a safe haven...some find they were disposable??
I think that this is rediculous.
The question we should be addressing here is not did God cover for Saint Vic the Phleabitten. Rather we should be asking, straight out of PFAL, which god would have covered for Saint Vic?
If it was from God....wouldn`t it have been a safe haven, a refuge for everyone?
and that is the whole point, I think.
why couldn't there have been room for everyone..
Page 161 of Witness of the Stars:
Bullinger is talking about the sign Argo (the ship) in the constellation Cancer.. and an allusion of it in Isaiah.
The whole chapter (Isa. lx.) should be read if we wish to understand the great teaching of this Sign, which tells of Messiah's secured possessions, the safe folding of His blood-bought flock, the blessed return of his pilgrims, and their entrance into everlasting rest. (then a wonderful poem)
no, we did NOT find this in da way..
I keep asking the question, in more than one form: where is "it"?
1Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.
2Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat.
So what exactly did she do "lying in his bosom", blow on his neck? Know means pregnancy, not sex only. He had many lovers even if they weren't all wives. He had 19 kids by at least 10 different women. Bathsheba had 4 of them, including Solomon and Nathan, who is mentioned in Joseph's line (Luke 3). It's good to be the king.
Your strategy works, for the most part. You figure that by micro analyzing everything I post, you will numb the mind of anyone who actually takes the time to read all the way through your long winded damage control. That's basically what theologians do to scripture, so by the time those seminary students get their degrees, their minds have been numbed to the point that they don't believe the bible is literally the word of God they're supposed to be subject to. It's just a sampler plate from a buffet to them. No actual submission. At least, that's the goal.
Speculation? All the stuff VP is accused of and you're telling me speculation?
Thanks for posting that lumberjack song. I used to watch that show, but I was usually stoned so I can't remember much. King Solomon actually drafted 80,000 lumberjacks. It took him 13 years to build his temple and there was no war for him to worry about, so he sent those people up into Lebanon to cut down trees, float them down the Mediterranean sea to Joppa, then transport them to Jerusalem via horses and wagons. They were lumberjacks and they were OK. Don't know about the high heels, etc.
Interesting to me that Solomon's rotation for the workers parallels the Grateful Dead's touring schedule during their heyday. Two months at work; one month home with the family. The Dead toured like that whether they had an album to promote or not. That allowed time for them to do other music projects and non music activities. That's how they lasted so long without burning out. Solomon's lumberjacks worked for two months and stayed home for one month. I just find that interesting.
Your strategy works, for the most part. You figure that by micro analyzing everything I post, you will numb the mind of anyone who actually takes the time to read all the way through your long winded damage control. That's basically what theologians do to scripture, so by the time those seminary students get their degrees, their minds have been numbed to the point that they don't believe the bible is literally the word of God they're supposed to be subject to. It's just a sampler plate from a buffet to them. No actual submission. At least, that's the goal.
I didn't know you went to a seminary! Which one? Bible college? Let me know....I may be familiar with it...I might even know someone who went there. . . . most of my kids friends go to bible college. They are spread out all over the country. You never know. Wow, I am surprised(Not really) that you believe the goal of seminary is is to numb minds and to prevent actual submission(whatever that means to you).
How many seminary grads do you spend time with? Theologians? Which ones do damage control with scripture...which theologians do you read or listen to? Whose course material have you studied with such depth that you feel confident in saying this? Maybe you have someone particular in mind? I might actually agree with you on a specific, but I would have to closely examine the material first....make sure I wasn't coming at it with an aberrant understanding....and really consider the evidence before I did agree with you....but it is possible.
The kids I know who are in seminary or bible college are on fire for the Lord and their lives usually put me to shame about my wasted youth in TWI. Seriously...I still get that icky feeling. None of them term the Word of God as a sampler plate....interesting.
So, from what vantage point of superior knowledge and pure understanding of the scriptures do you make this assessment about the church of Jesus Christ our Lord. PFAL...the Advanced Class? Seminary? Did the Holy Spirit tell you this?
You have already declared God doesn't like Billy Graham's idolatry(May God have mercy on you). This charge...I have to assume...comes from your deep understanding of BG's beliefs, heart, life, and relationship with a Holy God. What he speaks so tenderly about Jesus Christ? If you don't have that...I assume it comes from the evidence you do have of his life and the millions of souls he has won to the Lord. Oh, I forgot...bastard babies orphaned on the side of the road. As if the Lord is unable to keep those who belong to Him.
Arrogance....don't the scriptures mention this in relation to false teachers?
Sorry for the derail....please do get back to sex in the bible and the pure and Godly exegesis you have going. Me, I am going to take a shower....suddenly feels like I need one.
1Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.
2Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat.
So what exactly did she do "lying in his bosom", blow on his neck?
Here we see an excellent example of two of the problems of a twi/vpw "education."
1) A tendency to project a lot more sex into the Bible
2) An inability to read what's written because one is convinced they know the right of everything.
It did not say she was "lying in his bosom." Read what YOU just quoted.
It says his servants had that idea. The servants wanted to get him some young woman
to use for sex. This is what they thought, planned for, and expected.
David didn't go along with it that far- he didn't stop them from sending a woman in,
but he refused to sin against God again, and so he didn't have sex with her outside of his
marriage.
I Kings 1:4 (NASB)
4The girl was very beautiful; and she became the king's nurse and served him, but the king did not cohabit with her.
I Kings 1:4 NIV. "The woman was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no sexual relations with her."
I Kings 1:4 ESV. "The young woman was very beautiful, and she was of service to the king and attended to him, but the king knew her not."
I Kings 1:4 CEV."They brought her to David, and she took care of him. But David did not have sex with her. "
I Kings 1:4 ASV."And the damsel was very fair; and she cherished the king, and ministered to him; but the king knew her not. "
(etc, etc)
I Kings 15:5. "Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite."
Know means pregnancy, not sex only.
That's a belief that persists only among vpw-trained people. The Bible does not support
that claim.
Genesis 19:4-5.
4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
The men of Sodom may have been perverts and sex maniacs, but they knew that one man or many men
can't impregnate a man or men. If you tried reading the Bible and ditching all the vpw-invented
preconceived notions, you'd have discovered this long ago- vpw's claim is based on speculation
and the idea that it's plausible God would use a miracle to make a virgin conceive,
but that it's implausible that a young man could refrain from having sex with his pregnant wife
until after she's delivered her baby. A man caring enough to abstain from sex was too big a leap
of faith for vpw to make.
He had many lovers even if they weren't all wives. He had 19 kids by at least 10 different women. Bathsheba had 4 of them, including Solomon and Nathan, who is mentioned in Joseph's line (Luke 3). It's good to be the king.
When I have some time to kill, I should go over the timeline with a fine tooth comb, and see
if David was married to each at the time and her only, or unmarried when he was dancing the
horizontal with the non-wives. I'm not going to guess about something like that, and it's
obviously not a rush job.
Your strategy works, for the most part. You figure that by micro analyzing everything I post, you will numb the mind of anyone who actually takes the time to read all the way through your long winded damage control.
I'm sorry for you that you're unable to read my full posts with comprehension,
and have to resort to "the fox and the sour grapes" to deal with it.
Perhaps if you read the Bible with understanding more, you'd manage it. I hardly
write novellas when I post, so most people have no difficulty following along.
Since I post verses along with discussion OF the verses, it's longer to read the
posts, but FAR easier to follow along because I leave everything in plain sight.
For those with average reading comprehension abilities, it makes things easier
rather than harder. Sorry you can't keep up. Maybe if you split a post into
shorter readings, say, a paragraph at a time, you'd be able to understand what
I post. Actually, this makes official something that seemed pretty clear
earlier- that you reply to posts you don't even understand. All the time.
Thanks for making this obvious for those who hadn't figured it out yet.
That's basically what theologians do to scripture, so by the time those seminary students get their degrees, their minds have been numbed to the point that they don't believe the bible is literally the word of God they're supposed to be subject to. It's just a sampler plate from a buffet to them. No actual submission. At least, that's the goal.
(snipped the part that addressed someone else.)
That's not what the seminary students I've interacted with say.
In fact, offhand, or "from the hip", they could keep up with any
discussion on the Bible we've ever had at the GSC, and would
out-perform many posters.
ex-twi people are not nearly as learned about the Bible as they think they are.
Today there's no lack of "bible believing" education, colleges, universities and ministerial-leadership-training institutions of all stripe and color. Small and large, they're out there, here, wherever. The theology may vary but there's plenty of opportunity to cover areas that were only lighty dealt with in TWI's assorted classes - like history and Old Testament history specifically. The Way's teaching on this was basic if you became involved in the Way Corps program and left out a lot and there was no structured offering of a second or third level of study and on from there. You could go on a "Bible Lands" tour but that's not a structured approach to education on the history of the Bible, it's a sight seeing tour.
What's being covered here yet again about David and Solomon is historical - the past. We live in the present and when we get to the topic of "cultural differences" where it's said that OT "customs" for the Kings and such allowed for things not allowed for today, it seems ridiculous to draw lessons from that which aren't applicable today - because - our culture - the one in which we actually live - is not the same and does not allow for the same things if indeed they ever were as you're saying, johniam.
johniam, I know you're smarter than you post here (despite long term exposure to the Dead's music ) You would know what the 4th verse in the record you quoted from says, so I don't get where you're trying to go with that.
Historically we know that David and Solomon both had more than one wife and assorted concubines - that's in the Bible itself. We also know they were warned against doing that and specifically against wives that were of other nations and religions. This addresses the topic of "power" in a unique context, that of the "King" of the nation.
Remember -- we have no Kings today other than Lord - Jesus Christ. We don't take that rank and to assume privileges, rights and authority of such is well, nuts and an outright recipe for abject failure. That's important and more than a side note - we aren't "kings", we don't have a nation that's being ruled by a man, "gift ministries" are nothing like that and me - well, I'm some sort of grafted Gentile who wouldn't be worth an Israelite's time of day in the OT nor today - if not for Christ. So - just noting that.
Obviously - I think it's clear anyway - the office of King, that of Grand Poobah who rules all - contains in it the opportunity to do what one wilt - and the OT laws put constraints on that. David is considered within range (debatable and from that much dreaded topic of "moralityy" he clearly didn't have the character to handle it - Uriah and Bethsheba illusrate that, sadly) Yet David is considered a great man of the Bible. Solomon is said to have achieved great things yet ultimately failed in this "wives" category, to Israel's harm.
What the King did would effect the nation - that's clear. If the King went against the laws that governed his office everyone suffered. There's no question about that, biblically, logically, any level you look at it. The idea of God "forgiving" for anything did not automatically change the outcomes or results of the actions taken, right or wrong. Saying "I'm sorry I was wrong" didn't wash away the outcomes. Today Christian's often cite the cleansing power of Redemption as a reason to expect life to be a bed of roses no matter what they do - yet they suffer as others.
So as we used to say in the Way - the OT's "for our learning" - what are we learning from all of it? Are we learning anything at all other than the outer extremities of what man can get awaywith and manage to survive through? We need to do better than that. or we waste the very wealth of knowledge we claim to cling to and respect.... Are we drawing lessons on true "abundance" or how to sustain more failure and misery that we see repeatedly in the OT? I, socks, ask the question while pondering it myself. :unsure:
Although there's not a lot of evidence to support the Bible's history of David and Solomon's reigns let's assume they were as written. That they "did some good" and perhaps a lot of it is recorded in the Bible. Logically based on what the Bible states throughou,t the "big picture" of their lives carried a great deal of good. Yet we can also see they got off track as many times as a 4 wheeled go-kart with 3 tires.
I guess the issue here under discussion is that of comparing that with VPW and the conclusion that he, as with any man ,"could" do some good, some things that were right, correct, "godly" and worthwhile....right?
To that I would say, of course - that's Biblical, logical, and makes basic common sense.
But....
It completely depends on the actual facts of the life lived, the things done and the history we examine. Are, were those things, were there things, efforts, stuff - that was good, worthy, etc.
It doesn't follow that we would assume anything - the facts have to be looked at, weighed, evaluated and considered. There's no "gimme" on this that just because anyone puts up a shingle "MInister" that they're doing anything good no matter how well meaning. We have to look at the facts.
Which is where this always comes back to here on GS and will always present vigorous discussion.
quote: I'm sorry for you that you're unable to read my full posts with comprehension,
I understand English. As I said once before, I emphasize different things. The Jews had reasons for their desire to execute Jesus. They had facts, they had scripture, they had governing values, they had an agenda, all that stuff, but their conclusion was flawed. You demonstrate just as much selective reasoning, personal bias, reluctance to consider some ideas, and programming to an agenda as anybody else who's trying to make a point. I think you would get the nod if this were a formal debate, however, I believe that NOTHING supercedes the finished works of Jesus Christ. This includes salvation, not to be repented of, incorruptible seed, and a hope that fadeth not away. This is already a done deal. This is a door God opened that no man shutteth. God allowed the innocent blood of His son Jesus to be shed for you. Aren't you thankful for anything?
This whole mess began when you started a thread as an overreaction to me saying VP was not an evil man. It's been talked to death. If you're so sure that your stand is legitimate, then why the non stop damage control? Why strain at a gnat and swallow at a camel? Why flee when no man pursueth?
You may consider eyewitness testimony from individuals, but when you conclude that "old man Wierwille never taught safe boundaries, and VP was a bully, and he set a goal in 1942 to scam people and in 1970 he would finally get his well deserved virtual harem, and he was constantly drunk on Drambuie" (that stuff tastes like those old candy cigarettes, eww), you don't KNOW all that! It's pure speculation! It's obsessive.
VPs ministry lives on. There are fellowships all over the country where people can hear the word taught just like the best of twi times. Last month 3 of our old timer's kids flew to the SF bay area for a seminar. The same people who did the seminar also do what amounts to LEAD and way homes. This weekend I'm going to attend a CG taught intermediate class. John Hendricks' CRF still has wows (lights) and corps (forget what they call that). People are fickle but God is still God. Are you really going to spend all the time you have left attacking a dead man?
I believe that NOTHING supercedes the finished works of Jesus Christ. This includes salvation, not to be repented of, incorruptible seed, and a hope that fadeth not away. This is already a done deal. This is a door God opened that no man shutteth. God allowed the innocent blood of His son Jesus to be shed for you. Aren't you thankful for anything?
Finally the last horse crosses the finish line. Now had you said this at the beginning of the thread, we could have saved a lot of bandwidth. Dude, you took us around the block, showed us a couple of trees, then...BAM! After 315 posts of you chasing your shadow, you get to the point.
Are we grateful? Of course. I think most of the people on this board are grateful. To God, not TWI, not Saint Vic.
Now that you have your answer, we can put this thread to bed.
You may consider eyewitness testimony from individuals, but when you conclude that "old man Wierwille never taught safe boundaries, and VP was a bully, and he set a goal in 1942 to scam people and in 1970 he would finally get his well deserved virtual harem, and he was constantly drunk on Drambuie" (that stuff tastes like those old candy cigarettes, eww), you don't KNOW all that! It's pure speculation! It's obsessive.
Actually John---we DO know all that. It's not speculation.
Nobody's interested in the good Hitler did. Bet you didn't know he invented the Volkswagen. Hitler also painted roses. Does anybody care? Not really. All the good he did is overshadowed by a little thing called the Holocaust.
Same with Saint Vic. Any good he done is overshadowed by his dark side. And most of us spent a good portion of our life wrestling with Saint Vic's legacy. Some of us still fight with Saint Vic's dark side.
Am I comparing Saint Vic with Hitler? No, Saint Vic was much, much worst: Hitler only killed the body: Saint Vic killed the soul.
Maybe that's it. Maybe Johnny shared that "special, spiritual experience" (VPW, in CF&S Class) with Doc Vic. After all, Wierwille said that the "deed" is what constituted marriage. (also in CF&S) You surely wouldn't expect Johnny to speak poorly of his spouse now, would you?
Maybe that's it. Maybe Johnny shared that "special, spiritual experience" (VPW, in CF&S Class) with Doc Vic. After all, Wierwille said that the "deed" is what constituted marriage. (also in CF&S) You surely wouldn't expect Johnny to speak poorly of his spouse now, would you?
Okay guys, we're starting into ad hominem arguments.
ps. if he raped you, what scriptures would you use to tell me he was the moggy of this day and time?
Johniam, can you hear the pain in excathedra's statement? I can.
Does she sound like she's trying to be morally superior? Is she using selective reasoning?
She's just a person like you or me, that had something traumatic happen to her. It doesn't get any more real than that.
I know, your rationalization is God heals. What if it was your sister, your daughter or your wife, would you be taunting her with, God heals. or would you stop a minute and try and comprehend how its affected her life?
Tell me all you want about all the good deeds Saint Vic did. Is doesn't stack up to excathedra's pain alone, none the less all the women that have seen the inside of Saint Vic's motorcoach. When you look at all the trauma he's caused, just what is it we should be grateful to him for?
I don't think it's ad hominem. If John really thinks it's OK that VPW raped others for the furtherance of "the word", it shouldn't bother him to consider what it would have been like if he, himself, had been the recipient of VPW's "attention".
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
148
118
61
Popular Days
Feb 20
32
Feb 23
32
Feb 2
31
Feb 19
29
Top Posters In This Topic
johniam 61 posts
Ham 148 posts
waysider 118 posts
So_crates 61 posts
Popular Days
Feb 20 2011
32 posts
Feb 23 2011
32 posts
Feb 2 2011
31 posts
Feb 19 2011
29 posts
Popular Posts
Broken Arrow
I
WordWolf
Have I mentioned lately that I'm actually getting quite a bit out of this thread? I don't just mean in a sense of psychology/sociology/criminology, but in a sense of Christian learning. The whole p
T-Bone
morals are man-made? Really?!?! please provide some documentation to back up that philosophical assertion. personally i lean toward the christian idea [that does have a biblical basis] that man is m
So_crates
The question we should be addressing here is not did God cover for Saint Vic the Phleabitten. Rather we should be asking, straight out of PFAL, which god would have covered for Saint Vic?
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
and that is the whole point, I think.
why couldn't there have been room for everyone..
Page 161 of Witness of the Stars:
Bullinger is talking about the sign Argo (the ship) in the constellation Cancer.. and an allusion of it in Isaiah.
no, we did NOT find this in da way..
I keep asking the question, in more than one form: where is "it"?
I saw "it" once, in a dream..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
we'll see what god covers or uncovers lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
heh.. if it is some of it, it will require a lot of linen..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
hahahaha!
Yeah, to hear some people talk, you would think he was some kind of special, secret agent for the Lord or something.
Why do I keep hearing that old Johnny Rivers song?
There's a man who lives a life of debauchery.....
C'mon, everybody, sing with me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: I Kings 1:1-4. (KJV)
1Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.
2Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat.
So what exactly did she do "lying in his bosom", blow on his neck? Know means pregnancy, not sex only. He had many lovers even if they weren't all wives. He had 19 kids by at least 10 different women. Bathsheba had 4 of them, including Solomon and Nathan, who is mentioned in Joseph's line (Luke 3). It's good to be the king.
Your strategy works, for the most part. You figure that by micro analyzing everything I post, you will numb the mind of anyone who actually takes the time to read all the way through your long winded damage control. That's basically what theologians do to scripture, so by the time those seminary students get their degrees, their minds have been numbed to the point that they don't believe the bible is literally the word of God they're supposed to be subject to. It's just a sampler plate from a buffet to them. No actual submission. At least, that's the goal.
Speculation? All the stuff VP is accused of and you're telling me speculation?
Thanks for posting that lumberjack song. I used to watch that show, but I was usually stoned so I can't remember much. King Solomon actually drafted 80,000 lumberjacks. It took him 13 years to build his temple and there was no war for him to worry about, so he sent those people up into Lebanon to cut down trees, float them down the Mediterranean sea to Joppa, then transport them to Jerusalem via horses and wagons. They were lumberjacks and they were OK. Don't know about the high heels, etc.
Interesting to me that Solomon's rotation for the workers parallels the Grateful Dead's touring schedule during their heyday. Two months at work; one month home with the family. The Dead toured like that whether they had an album to promote or not. That allowed time for them to do other music projects and non music activities. That's how they lasted so long without burning out. Solomon's lumberjacks worked for two months and stayed home for one month. I just find that interesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I didn't know you went to a seminary! Which one? Bible college? Let me know....I may be familiar with it...I might even know someone who went there. . . . most of my kids friends go to bible college. They are spread out all over the country. You never know. Wow, I am surprised(Not really) that you believe the goal of seminary is is to numb minds and to prevent actual submission(whatever that means to you).
How many seminary grads do you spend time with? Theologians? Which ones do damage control with scripture...which theologians do you read or listen to? Whose course material have you studied with such depth that you feel confident in saying this? Maybe you have someone particular in mind? I might actually agree with you on a specific, but I would have to closely examine the material first....make sure I wasn't coming at it with an aberrant understanding....and really consider the evidence before I did agree with you....but it is possible.
The kids I know who are in seminary or bible college are on fire for the Lord and their lives usually put me to shame about my wasted youth in TWI. Seriously...I still get that icky feeling. None of them term the Word of God as a sampler plate....interesting.
So, from what vantage point of superior knowledge and pure understanding of the scriptures do you make this assessment about the church of Jesus Christ our Lord. PFAL...the Advanced Class? Seminary? Did the Holy Spirit tell you this?
You have already declared God doesn't like Billy Graham's idolatry(May God have mercy on you). This charge...I have to assume...comes from your deep understanding of BG's beliefs, heart, life, and relationship with a Holy God. What he speaks so tenderly about Jesus Christ? If you don't have that...I assume it comes from the evidence you do have of his life and the millions of souls he has won to the Lord. Oh, I forgot...bastard babies orphaned on the side of the road. As if the Lord is unable to keep those who belong to Him.
Arrogance....don't the scriptures mention this in relation to false teachers?
Sorry for the derail....please do get back to sex in the bible and the pure and Godly exegesis you have going. Me, I am going to take a shower....suddenly feels like I need one.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Here we see an excellent example of two of the problems of a twi/vpw "education."
1) A tendency to project a lot more sex into the Bible
2) An inability to read what's written because one is convinced they know the right of everything.
It did not say she was "lying in his bosom." Read what YOU just quoted.
It says his servants had that idea. The servants wanted to get him some young woman
to use for sex. This is what they thought, planned for, and expected.
David didn't go along with it that far- he didn't stop them from sending a woman in,
but he refused to sin against God again, and so he didn't have sex with her outside of his
marriage.
I Kings 1:4 (NASB)
4The girl was very beautiful; and she became the king's nurse and served him, but the king did not cohabit with her.
I Kings 1:4 NIV. "The woman was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no sexual relations with her."
I Kings 1:4 ESV. "The young woman was very beautiful, and she was of service to the king and attended to him, but the king knew her not."
I Kings 1:4 CEV."They brought her to David, and she took care of him. But David did not have sex with her. "
I Kings 1:4 ASV."And the damsel was very fair; and she cherished the king, and ministered to him; but the king knew her not. "
(etc, etc)
I Kings 15:5. "Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite."
That's a belief that persists only among vpw-trained people. The Bible does not support
that claim.
Genesis 19:4-5.
4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
The men of Sodom may have been perverts and sex maniacs, but they knew that one man or many men
can't impregnate a man or men. If you tried reading the Bible and ditching all the vpw-invented
preconceived notions, you'd have discovered this long ago- vpw's claim is based on speculation
and the idea that it's plausible God would use a miracle to make a virgin conceive,
but that it's implausible that a young man could refrain from having sex with his pregnant wife
until after she's delivered her baby. A man caring enough to abstain from sex was too big a leap
of faith for vpw to make.
When I have some time to kill, I should go over the timeline with a fine tooth comb, and see
if David was married to each at the time and her only, or unmarried when he was dancing the
horizontal with the non-wives. I'm not going to guess about something like that, and it's
obviously not a rush job.
I'm sorry for you that you're unable to read my full posts with comprehension,
and have to resort to "the fox and the sour grapes" to deal with it.
Perhaps if you read the Bible with understanding more, you'd manage it. I hardly
write novellas when I post, so most people have no difficulty following along.
Since I post verses along with discussion OF the verses, it's longer to read the
posts, but FAR easier to follow along because I leave everything in plain sight.
For those with average reading comprehension abilities, it makes things easier
rather than harder. Sorry you can't keep up. Maybe if you split a post into
shorter readings, say, a paragraph at a time, you'd be able to understand what
I post. Actually, this makes official something that seemed pretty clear
earlier- that you reply to posts you don't even understand. All the time.
Thanks for making this obvious for those who hadn't figured it out yet.
That's not what the seminary students I've interacted with say.
In fact, offhand, or "from the hip", they could keep up with any
discussion on the Bible we've ever had at the GSC, and would
out-perform many posters.
ex-twi people are not nearly as learned about the Bible as they think they are.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Today there's no lack of "bible believing" education, colleges, universities and ministerial-leadership-training institutions of all stripe and color. Small and large, they're out there, here, wherever. The theology may vary but there's plenty of opportunity to cover areas that were only lighty dealt with in TWI's assorted classes - like history and Old Testament history specifically. The Way's teaching on this was basic if you became involved in the Way Corps program and left out a lot and there was no structured offering of a second or third level of study and on from there. You could go on a "Bible Lands" tour but that's not a structured approach to education on the history of the Bible, it's a sight seeing tour.
What's being covered here yet again about David and Solomon is historical - the past. We live in the present and when we get to the topic of "cultural differences" where it's said that OT "customs" for the Kings and such allowed for things not allowed for today, it seems ridiculous to draw lessons from that which aren't applicable today - because - our culture - the one in which we actually live - is not the same and does not allow for the same things if indeed they ever were as you're saying, johniam.
johniam, I know you're smarter than you post here (despite long term exposure to the Dead's music
) You would know what the 4th verse in the record you quoted from says, so I don't get where you're trying to go with that.
Historically we know that David and Solomon both had more than one wife and assorted concubines - that's in the Bible itself. We also know they were warned against doing that and specifically against wives that were of other nations and religions. This addresses the topic of "power" in a unique context, that of the "King" of the nation.
Remember -- we have no Kings today other than Lord - Jesus Christ. We don't take that rank and to assume privileges, rights and authority of such is well, nuts and an outright recipe for abject failure. That's important and more than a side note - we aren't "kings", we don't have a nation that's being ruled by a man, "gift ministries" are nothing like that and me - well, I'm some sort of grafted Gentile who wouldn't be worth an Israelite's time of day in the OT nor today - if not for Christ. So - just noting that.
Obviously - I think it's clear anyway - the office of King, that of Grand Poobah who rules all - contains in it the opportunity to do what one wilt - and the OT laws put constraints on that. David is considered within range (debatable and from that much dreaded topic of "moralityy" he clearly didn't have the character to handle it - Uriah and Bethsheba illusrate that, sadly) Yet David is considered a great man of the Bible. Solomon is said to have achieved great things yet ultimately failed in this "wives" category, to Israel's harm.
What the King did would effect the nation - that's clear. If the King went against the laws that governed his office everyone suffered. There's no question about that, biblically, logically, any level you look at it. The idea of God "forgiving" for anything did not automatically change the outcomes or results of the actions taken, right or wrong. Saying "I'm sorry I was wrong" didn't wash away the outcomes. Today Christian's often cite the cleansing power of Redemption as a reason to expect life to be a bed of roses no matter what they do - yet they suffer as others.
So as we used to say in the Way - the OT's "for our learning" - what are we learning from all of it? Are we learning anything at all other than the outer extremities of what man can get away with and manage to survive through? We need to do better than that. or we waste the very wealth of knowledge we claim to cling to and respect.... Are we drawing lessons on true "abundance" or how to sustain more failure and misery that we see repeatedly in the OT? I, socks, ask the question while pondering it myself. :unsure:
Although there's not a lot of evidence to support the Bible's history of David and Solomon's reigns let's assume they were as written. That they "did some good" and perhaps a lot of it is recorded in the Bible. Logically based on what the Bible states throughou,t the "big picture" of their lives carried a great deal of good. Yet we can also see they got off track as many times as a 4 wheeled go-kart with 3 tires.
I guess the issue here under discussion is that of comparing that with VPW and the conclusion that he, as with any man ,"could" do some good, some things that were right, correct, "godly" and worthwhile....right?
To that I would say, of course - that's Biblical, logical, and makes basic common sense.
But....
It completely depends on the actual facts of the life lived, the things done and the history we examine. Are, were those things, were there things, efforts, stuff - that was good, worthy, etc.
It doesn't follow that we would assume anything - the facts have to be looked at, weighed, evaluated and considered. There's no "gimme" on this that just because anyone puts up a shingle "MInister" that they're doing anything good no matter how well meaning. We have to look at the facts.
Which is where this always comes back to here on GS and will always present vigorous discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
and let's not forget number three:
3. A tendency to TRIVIALIZE any clear warnings and prohibitions, by redefining the terms as "spiritual adultery", etc. etc..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And of course #4:
Everybody's an idiot except Saint Vic.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: I'm sorry for you that you're unable to read my full posts with comprehension,
I understand English. As I said once before, I emphasize different things. The Jews had reasons for their desire to execute Jesus. They had facts, they had scripture, they had governing values, they had an agenda, all that stuff, but their conclusion was flawed. You demonstrate just as much selective reasoning, personal bias, reluctance to consider some ideas, and programming to an agenda as anybody else who's trying to make a point. I think you would get the nod if this were a formal debate, however, I believe that NOTHING supercedes the finished works of Jesus Christ. This includes salvation, not to be repented of, incorruptible seed, and a hope that fadeth not away. This is already a done deal. This is a door God opened that no man shutteth. God allowed the innocent blood of His son Jesus to be shed for you. Aren't you thankful for anything?
This whole mess began when you started a thread as an overreaction to me saying VP was not an evil man. It's been talked to death. If you're so sure that your stand is legitimate, then why the non stop damage control? Why strain at a gnat and swallow at a camel? Why flee when no man pursueth?
You may consider eyewitness testimony from individuals, but when you conclude that "old man Wierwille never taught safe boundaries, and VP was a bully, and he set a goal in 1942 to scam people and in 1970 he would finally get his well deserved virtual harem, and he was constantly drunk on Drambuie" (that stuff tastes like those old candy cigarettes, eww), you don't KNOW all that! It's pure speculation! It's obsessive.
VPs ministry lives on. There are fellowships all over the country where people can hear the word taught just like the best of twi times. Last month 3 of our old timer's kids flew to the SF bay area for a seminar. The same people who did the seminar also do what amounts to LEAD and way homes. This weekend I'm going to attend a CG taught intermediate class. John Hendricks' CRF still has wows (lights) and corps (forget what they call that). People are fickle but God is still God. Are you really going to spend all the time you have left attacking a dead man?
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
why do you think it is a dead(?) man that we(whoever that is) is, or are attacking?
why is it.. that you give even half a damn about the old (ver, very ) old man's "ministry"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Finally the last horse crosses the finish line. Now had you said this at the beginning of the thread, we could have saved a lot of bandwidth. Dude, you took us around the block, showed us a couple of trees, then...BAM! After 315 posts of you chasing your shadow, you get to the point.
Are we grateful? Of course. I think most of the people on this board are grateful. To God, not TWI, not Saint Vic.
Now that you have your answer, we can put this thread to bed.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You may consider eyewitness testimony from individuals, but when you conclude that "old man Wierwille never taught safe boundaries, and VP was a bully, and he set a goal in 1942 to scam people and in 1970 he would finally get his well deserved virtual harem, and he was constantly drunk on Drambuie" (that stuff tastes like those old candy cigarettes, eww), you don't KNOW all that! It's pure speculation! It's obsessive.
Actually John---we DO know all that. It's not speculation.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Nobody's interested in the good Hitler did. Bet you didn't know he invented the Volkswagen. Hitler also painted roses. Does anybody care? Not really. All the good he did is overshadowed by a little thing called the Holocaust.
Same with Saint Vic. Any good he done is overshadowed by his dark side. And most of us spent a good portion of our life wrestling with Saint Vic's legacy. Some of us still fight with Saint Vic's dark side.
Am I comparing Saint Vic with Hitler? No, Saint Vic was much, much worst: Hitler only killed the body: Saint Vic killed the soul.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
he definitely killed or damaged the soul
johnyam i think you're full of nonsense going on and on and on about pure crap
if you love the guy or feel a need to defend him, have at it
but all these quotes oh my god who the heck do you think he was
we'll see one day
in the meantime i think he was a big fat jerk
--
ps. if he raped you, what scriptures would you use to tell me he was the moggy of this day and time?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
That should settle it right there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe that's it. Maybe Johnny shared that "special, spiritual experience" (VPW, in CF&S Class) with Doc Vic. After all, Wierwille said that the "deed" is what constituted marriage. (also in CF&S) You surely wouldn't expect Johnny to speak poorly of his spouse now, would you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Okay guys, we're starting into ad hominem arguments.
Johniam, can you hear the pain in excathedra's statement? I can.
Does she sound like she's trying to be morally superior? Is she using selective reasoning?
She's just a person like you or me, that had something traumatic happen to her. It doesn't get any more real than that.
I know, your rationalization is God heals. What if it was your sister, your daughter or your wife, would you be taunting her with, God heals. or would you stop a minute and try and comprehend how its affected her life?
Tell me all you want about all the good deeds Saint Vic did. Is doesn't stack up to excathedra's pain alone, none the less all the women that have seen the inside of Saint Vic's motorcoach. When you look at all the trauma he's caused, just what is it we should be grateful to him for?
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
John.. I am really sorry that you have gauged or measure your spirituality by the "accomplishments" of this numbnuts..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
so where is the special "protection".. that you enjoy.. what is it?
I would like to have the same..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I don't think it's ad hominem. If John really thinks it's OK that VPW raped others for the furtherance of "the word", it shouldn't bother him to consider what it would have been like if he, himself, had been the recipient of VPW's "attention".
Edited by waysiderLink 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.