The discussion was started by someone who thinks VP is worse than the Penn state guy, a pedophile (alleged). I dispute that. You opened the door. Just because I have an alternate definition of "moved boundaries" doesn't violate the discussion.
You call me heartless because I dispute some of your conclusions? Why don't you tell the victims of the Penn state guy and their families that their plight isn't as bad as victims of VP. NOW who is "heartless"?
So this is what things look like from that perch you claim for yourself in the heavenlies?
I don't know.....I think all sexual predators are rapacious criminals......equally evil. Those who enable them after having the facts don't fall too far behind in the order.......
Some yokel with a self-appointed anointing for pastoral care...who leads thousands of people away from the one true God while sexually assaulting the most vulnerable and unprotected young girls under the umbrella of his supposed ministry........and does it in the name of God.......this yokel just might be evil personified. Call me crazy, but knowing some of these wounded souls will never again seek a relationship with God.....will spend years trying to recover.......it doesn't seem like something that would come from a true child of the king. Someone who truly knows and loves the Lord....would never maim in His name. Someone who knows and loves the Lord would never ever minimize or try to defend this man using God's holy scriptures.
No "slashing", just reading what's written. Romans 11:13 says for I speak to you gentiles. Does that mean Christians don't have to "respect". No, but whatever "high-mindedness" is found in a Christian didn't prevent them from getting born again. Context.
Our hope is not yet fulfilled, but seated in the heavenlies means we can see a lot of things from God's point of view unviewable to those dead in trespasses and sins. It looks as good to me now as it did 35 years ago when I started going to twig.
If you read what's actually written in Romans 9-11, you'll see that NONE of it is addressed TO Israel. Romans 9:1-11:12 is ABOUT Israel, but it isn't addressed TO Israel. You'll also see that the gentiles addressed in 11:13 are Roman Christians, aleady born again, who came to Christ from gentile backgrounds. Wierwille LIED in PFAL about who this passage was addressed to, in the section of PFAL regarding the importance of getting "to whom addressed" right.
Talking about Wierwille moving boundaries!
What is "high-mindedness"? It's thinking more highly of yourself than you ought. It's thinking you are better than other people because you can sit up there in the heavenlies looking down on all the other poor saps. They're dead in their trespasses and sins! They deserve whatever they get!
And much as Wierwille would have liked us to believe that "fearing" God means respecting Him, the way we would respect an elderly uncle we no longer have to obey, that's not what is written, and that's not what it means.
If you read what's actually written in Romans 9-11, you'll see that NONE of it is addressed TO Israel. Romans 9:1-11:12 is ABOUT Israel, but it isn't addressed TO Israel. You'll also see that the gentiles addressed in 11:13 are Roman Christians, aleady born again, who came to Christ from gentile backgrounds. Wierwille LIED in PFAL about who this passage was addressed to, in the section of PFAL regarding the importance of getting "to whom addressed" right.
Romans 1:1-7 (KJV)
1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
6Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
7To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 1:1-7 (NASB)
1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;
7 to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
[The entire LETTER of Paul to the Romans was a single letter, which was addressed to the Christians of Rome.
Anything in the actual letter that appears to be otherwise must be read in the context of THE ENTIRE LETTER.
Stop and think. It is SENSELESS to think that Paul would be instructed to write a letter to the Christians
and suddenly have it diverge for a page to address local Jews, and another page to address local Gentiles.
They would never READ the letter! It's all ONE letter. It talks TO Christians. Therefore, when it speaks
"to you Gentiles", it should be amazingly OBVIOUS it is not addressing Joe Gentile down the street, but
Christians in Rome- and when you remember that, it takes little thought to realize it's addressing the
born again GENTILES rather than unbelieving ones, just as some letters were addressed to born again JEWS
rather than unbelieving ones. ("To the 12 tribes"..)
I got to thinking about that after it was just used again today to excuse us from having to ACT rightly
since we're Christians. vpw misused this verse (what else is new?) to allow himself room to sin with
impunity and insist God wouldn't mind. He taught it accordingly, and we all bought into it for a time.
(Anyone still buying into it after their next read after this, however, has no excuse for just blowing
off what it REALLY means.]
Talking about Wierwille moving boundaries!
What is "high-mindedness"? It's thinking more highly of yourself than you ought. It's thinking you are better than other people because you can sit up there in the heavenlies looking down on all the other poor saps. They're dead in their trespasses and sins! They deserve whatever they get!
And much as Wierwille would have liked us to believe that "fearing" God means respecting Him, the way we would respect an elderly uncle we no longer have to obey, that's not what is written, and that's not what it means.
When Wierwille was drugging and raping the least of his sisters,he was drugging and raping Jesus Christ. What are we supposed to think THAT looked like from a seat in the heavenlies?
The discussion was started by someone who thinks VP is worse than the Penn state guy, a pedophile (alleged). I dispute that. You opened the door. Just because I have an alternate definition of "moved boundaries" doesn't violate the discussion.
johniam......this discussion started with questions, NOT stating that VP is worse than the Penn State guy, a pedophile. How can you possibly research or discuss anything in proper context WHEN YOU DON'T READ WHAT IS WRITTEN?
This discussion started with this post:
"Sexual predators and cover-ups are making news again. The Penn State scandal involving Jerry Sandusky, a defensive football coach under Joe Paterno, and young boys has rocked the college football world.
A whistleblower broke the story....... And last night, the Board of Trustees fired Graham Spanier​, president of Penn State, and Joe Paterno​, the legendary coach of the Nittany Lions.
YET.......The Way International has black-listed and denied any "whistle-blower" who came forward regarding sexual predators like Victor Paul Wierwille and L. Craig Martindale and others. Books have been written....detailing the sexual predatory ways and destruction of lives. Waydale and Greasespot, specifically, in the past 10 years has outed twi's ways of darkness.
Is it MORE evil to be a sexual predator of young boys?
Or, is it MORE evil to be a sexual predator of young girls.....who commit their lives to God and enter a secluded, religious-campus setting?
Or.....is a sexual predator a sexual predator, PERIOD???!!!"
I think all sexual predators are rapacious criminals......equally evil. Those who enable them after having the facts don't fall too far behind in the order.......
Some yokel with a self-appointed anointing for pastoral care...who leads thousands of people away from the one true God while sexually assaulting the most vulnerable and unprotected young girls under the umbrella of his supposed ministry........and does it in the name of God.......this yokel just might be evil personified. Call me crazy, but knowing some of these wounded souls will never again seek a relationship with God.....will spend years trying to recover.......it doesn't seem like something that would come from a true child of the king. Someone who truly knows and loves the Lord....would never maim in His name. Someone who knows and loves the Lord would never ever minimize or try to defend this man using God's holy scriptures.
JB, your post made me heave. Heard most of this before, but - heard. Seeing it written... (vomit icon please). I feel distinctly queasy.
• My twig coordinator went to a mens' advance and told me they'd taught all the men that the verses in Proverbs that prohibit illicit sexually behavior all apply to women. The clear implication was that it's okay for men to screw around.
Haven't heard that one before; maybe some of that "special knowledge" for special groups (males).
• My branch leader told me that, in the Family Corps, the men had been advised to read Penthouse magazine to spice up their sex lives. Can you imagine Penthouse being recommended reading at any accredited Bible College?
• Oh, I almost forgot. My branch coordinator suggested that we show XXX-rated pornography at a believer's bachelor party. He said we should all be spiritually mature enough to handle it. Wonder where he learned that?
Ex 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Matt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Wouldn't spiritual maturity be ensuring that one didn't look on a woman to lust after her? (What else is the purpose of porn?)
Oh, but of course. Adultery doesn't matter, in the renewed mind or whilst seated in the heavenlies.
See. Admit. Shoulder. It's not about VP, it's about Jesus Christ. I'd rather reach, touch, help.
Yes, the more I read your posts, the more I think you would like to reach out and touch. It sure would explain why you work so hard to defend a sexual predator
Do you know where those words come from? I didn't use them haphazardly. They are the governing verbs in each chorus of Joe Fair's song 'One by one'. (if I could reach just one, if I could touch just one, if I could help just one, one by one) Do you think Joe Fair is a pedophile also?
Just for the record, all of you are seated in the heavenlies, not just me. Instead of being thankful and enjoying your guaranteed eternal life and the down payment gift of holy spirit, you want to wallow in shame and bitterness for the rest of your days. Glad it's you and not me.
Kris' book did answer one question I had. I wanted to ask Excathedra, but didn't have the nerve. The question was, do you believe VP really believed the yarn about adultery is OK, or was he knowingly doing something he believed was wrong? He really DID believe it was all OK. The part where he told her "a man of God needs lots of women" something like that.
Gideon had 70 wives. Solomon had 1,000 including concubines. David had 19 sons by almost that many women. Jacob had 13 kids by 4 women. God Almighty doesn't have a problem with men simply having a sex drive and being opportunistic with it. How much "meaningfull consent" did any of Gideon's wives really have? Or David's or any of the others'? VP did violate consent if he drugged anyone. He could have seen on the faces of some of those women that they weren't blessed. He was self serving. But he wasn't a pedophile!
A sexual predator is a sexual predator PERIOD???? No. Interesting that a few years ago a woman who consentually had sex with VP multiple times was here. Didn't take long for venemous posters to run her off. Just like black democrats are with Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain. Just like feminists are with Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Like I said, glad it's you and not me.
Johniam, please consider THESE scriptures which you may consider supersede the OT ones - being as these are addressed TO THE CHURCH TO WHICH WE NOW BELONG rather than to the OT patriarchal society. In any event, the references you quote simply state what the situation is - not state it with approval.
You may come round to thinking that God doesn't have a problem with man's sex drive (after all, He put it there) PROVIDED the man keeps his sex drive under proper control ... within proper boundaries ... boundaries somewhat like these:
Ephesians 5:33 KJV Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself...
LOVE HIS WIFE - not someone else's wife, and not "his wives."
1 Timothy 3:2 KJVA bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
A BISHOP - what's that, hmm, someone in some sort of leadership position in the church? Like the Man of God for that day and time?
THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE - rather speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Or do you think that gives a bishop/church leader to be ... a husband of one wife ... and keep a harem of other women?
(And what about the other requirements for a church leader? But let's not go there on this thread.)
Titus 1:6 KJV If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE- second time it says that. And, again, to church leadership.
Again - the WIFE of thy youth - NOT the "wives" of thy youth - and not with the wife of the youth (young man) that you employ, know, go to church with, or have any other communication with, either.
While we're about it - lemme think - Adam's wives were called Eve and ... who else? Oh yeah, that's right. God only gave him ONE wife. How very mean of God, considering his later "approval" of 1000 women.
Instead of being thankful and enjoying your guaranteed eternal life and the down payment gift of holy spirit, you want to wallow in shame and bitterness for the rest of your days. Glad it's you and not me.
...
A sexual predator is a sexual predator PERIOD???? No. Interesting that a few years ago a woman who consentually had sex with VP multiple times was here. Didn't take long for venemous posters to run her off. Just like black democrats are with Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain. Just like feminists are with Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Like I said, glad it's you and not me.
I don't think I'm wallowing when I read your post and rejoice that I don't have to go around covered in a veil and subject to all those laws, that I've been just as liberated as a man has, that there is neither male nor female etc, that we have equal access to our Father and that we don't have to take that rubbish. "God doesn't have a problem with men being ..." - my breath leaves me just reading that sentence, picturing again those "opportunistic" randy old goats.
Feminists are against SP and MB because they're women? You make your arguments in such broad strokes that I'm not sure what you're saying, and as to your Joe Fair extrapolation, that makes no sense from any angle.
Just for the record, all of you are seated in the heavenlies, not just me. Instead of being thankful and enjoying your guaranteed eternal life and the down payment gift of holy spirit, you want to wallow in shame and bitterness for the rest of your days. Glad it's you and not me.
Kris' book did answer one question I had. I wanted to ask Excathedra, but didn't have the nerve. The question was, do you believe VP really believed the yarn about adultery is OK, or was he knowingly doing something he believed was wrong? He really DID believe it was all OK. The part where he told her "a man of God needs lots of women" something like that.
Gideon had 70 wives. Solomon had 1,000 including concubines. David had 19 sons by almost that many women. Jacob had 13 kids by 4 women. God Almighty doesn't have a problem with men simply having a sex drive and being opportunistic with it. How much "meaningfull consent" did any of Gideon's wives really have? Or David's or any of the others'? VP did violate consent if he drugged anyone. He could have seen on the faces of some of those women that they weren't blessed. He was self serving. But he wasn't a pedophile!
I promise not to get too doctrinal but this outrageous post demands a response. There is a huge difference between providing for the unprotected women in the polygamist relationships of the OT where David and Solomon MARRIED multiple women. These vulnerable women fell under their protection with marriage or associated relationship. It was better than being alone and defenseless.......not the ideal situation but better than what might have happened to them if they were left unprotected. Any unscrupulous fool could have abused and used them and justified it with their "needs." No where does it say God approved of all those women.
However, the scriptures clearly present monogamy as related closest to God's plan for marriage. So much so that it is a firm guideline for leaders in the church......the husband of one wife.
There is a difference between understanding the need to marry for protection in the OT and jumping to the nasty conclusion that a man has need of multiple women because of his "urges" and that is why God allowed it. Geeze.....this is so typical of TWI thinking( and YES there is such an animal)......go right to the lustful rationalization....twist the scriptures and come up with a justification for sin. Make sure to use God to get the stamp of approval. Not only is this twisted...it is unbelievably sinful and offensive.
Instead of taking a look at the word in the flesh and how He treated women.....Johniam you have come up with some shallow and base reasoning from the holy scriptures to defend the indefensible. I would be reflective ....one of the most frightening verses in the bible is when Jesus says..."Depart, I never knew you."
How do we go from VP sexually assaulting young women who were influenced by him as an authority figure and spiritual leader to rationalization of lust because of OT marriage relationships? People in positions of authority ......real or perceived have a responsibility to their charges. A Godly man knows this and understands those boundaries. There is no such thing as consent in an authority laden relationship and it doesn't get more authoritative than the MOG.
.And for the record.....not everyone here is a Christian and just because they SIT in PFAL it is no guarantee they have eternal life. Pick up your bible turn to Corinthians and read what Paul is telling you about genuine and counterfeit. Pick up your bible and read what it means to be born-again.....it is not a formula it is a relationship. The content of faith is what is revealed in Romans 10: 9 & 10 they are not just some magic words.
I am totally disgusted.. . . . sometimes things are just too reminiscent of my time in TWI.....I am so glad to be free from all of it and away from people who call themselves Christian but still think like that.
Gideon had 70 wives. Solomon had 1,000 including concubines. David had 19 sons by almost that many women. Jacob had 13 kids by 4 women. God Almighty doesn't have a problem with men simply having a sex drive and being opportunistic with it. How much "meaningfull consent" did any of Gideon's wives really have? Or David's or any of the others'?
Wierwille did not live in Biblical times. He lived in a rural area of Western Ohio in the 20th century. Why on earth would you even compare him, or what he did, to people and events from thousands of years ago?
VP did violate consent if he drugged anyone. He could have seen on the faces of some of those women that they weren't blessed. He was self serving. But he wasn't a pedophile!
Maybe he was a pedophile, maybe he wasn't. We will probably never know for certain. One thing we do know for certain is that he openly stated, in group situations, that he sexually molested his own adolescent daughter. That would qualify as pedophilia. There are posters on GSC who were present at those gatherings,, so that is first hand testimony. Now, just because he claimed to have done it does not prove that he actually did. People falsely claim to have done all sorts of things they never did, such as becoming Navy Seals or Hell's Angels. Even so, sexual predation comes in many forms. Pedophilia is just one variety. We do know for certain that Wierwille was a chronic sexual predator. That's a verifiable fact.
A sexual predator is a sexual predator PERIOD???? No. Interesting that a few years ago a woman who consentually had sex with VP multiple times was here. Didn't take long for venemous posters to run her off.
John, consent does not negate the sexual predation of the perpetrator. It's simply another variety of the same type of thing.
Just like black democrats are with Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain. Just like feminists are with Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Like I said, glad it's you and not me.
This is a total disconnect....not at all related to the subject.
.
Take all the Bible comparisons out and look at it from a purely secular viewpoint. It becomes more obvious.
The man was a chronic sexual predator, he had no remorse for his actions and he trained/encouraged his proteges to adapt a mindset and life style that mimicked his own. Maybe you were one of them. Were you, John?
Edit:
"God Almighty doesn't have a problem with men simply having a sex drive and being opportunistic with it."
Since you seem to be enamored of Biblical comparisons,can you point me in the direction of something in the scriptures that confirms this?
.... do you believe VP really believed the yarn about adultery is OK, or was he knowingly doing something he believed was wrong? He really DID believe it was all OK.
So, then, if I simply believe something is OK, that will make everything alright?
"I'm sorry Your Honor, I really thought murder was OK."
He was self serving. But he wasn't a pedophile!
Is general sexual predation less of a sin than pedophilia? Do you recall that part of PFAL where Mr. Wierwille says that all sins are equal and there are no "grey" sins, big and little sins?
Well, Hell's bells. Maybe you were off trying to wash the lipstick stains off the styro cups when that part came up. Or, maybe you were off in a corner trying to cop a feel. Who could fault you for that? After all, a man has to seize the opportunity when it arises, right? I mean, it says so right there in the Bible and all.
This is really several different kinds of discussions and one of them IS biblical and doctrinal.
"Adultery" in the bible is fairly simple and straightforward - having a commitment made to one spouse that commits a primary relationship to that one spouse and having the primary relationship with another who is not your spouse. Sex is included in the primary relationship definition.
Jesus clarified this in Matthew 5: 27 and 28. Read it. It handles the O.T. commandments of "coveting" a "neighbor's wife" and committing adultery. He states clearly - to lust after another woman "already" commits adultery in the heart. It involves wanting something that's forbidden, that's off limits.
What's off limits? The coveting that leads to adultery. Jesus is speaking to a specific context here.
VPW was married, by all standards, legal, biblical, cultural. His side of this discourse isn't up for debate. Whether a woman was single or married, he was married. To produce a situation where the physical desire for him or another towards him was the outcome is wrong, per Jesus. It doesn't allow for a situation where the married man is free to have sexual relations with an unmarried woman. That's handled by the definition of "fornication". The N.T. epistles bring that up from time to time.
The basic biblical scenario that's painted in the N.T. is for men and women "not to burn" with desire - people are people, human. Desire is part of the human makeup. Marriage is the correct context for sex. Men who choose to be leaders in the church are instructed to be the "husbands of one wife". Have a relationship with one woman and maintain that one. Or just apply the old saying - don't s--t where you eat....don't screw where you work. Any idiot figures that out whether they aspire to a higher ideal or not.
The O.T. records of people like David who had multiple "wives" don't mean they were free to have sex with as many women as they wanted - just "marry" them and have at it. I'm surprised that's even still up for discussion. A little history is needed but I'm not going to teach it here. If anyone wants to be ignorant so be it but I promise you you're going to look pretty dammed stupid trying to pawn that off on anyone who's bothered to read more than what the Way published on that topic.
Another good point to remember in this topic is that within what we read in the Epistles is a chronology of sorts - there's (at minimum) 4 generations in the N. T. Bible we read today - Jesus and His followers are the 1st - John, Peter, Mary, all of them. The 2nd includes Paul, Luke, Mark and others we read about in Acts, etc. The 3rd would be those that grew out of Jerusalem, and then on from there are those that are represented by the people the epistles are written to.
We can assume that many if not most of these people had never seen or heard Jesus themselves and most may have never heard of Him at all, certainly not in the way they were hearing it all then (even counting those in Jerusalem that heard Peter on Pentecost - we don't know exactly what that produced across the geography of the middle East). So they were much like us in that respect, different in time and space but similar in this regard. It's obvious but it makes a difference to me to realize that these "letters" were already addressing a group removed from the actual "time of Christ" by 3, 4, 5 generations.
This is an important context to remember I think because they really give a view into what the earliest churches were like, what they were going through, the challenges they encountered. We can see this in Corinth, for instance and what's written to them, "Corinthians" 1 and 2 are very granular in the issues they address in parts.
Point being that the behavior and conduct of the people was being addressed, how they treated each other and carried out their business now that they were getting some miles under them, what worked, what didn't work. And how their leaders - the elders amongst them who helped in their oversight and well being - were to act.
It's clear, there's no fudge room IMO. The fact that we may try to fudge illustrates that we choose to ignore what the bible clearly says and instructs and instead try to get an acquittal based on a loop hole in an interpretation of some past example that we present in the hopes that our audience doesn't really know the facts - the actual truth of the facts - and can be bamboozled.
The fact that VPW really thought he was okay in this category indicates how far afield he was. Like a guy who says "I thought it was okay to go through that red light because I didn't see anyone coming from the other way - so it was okay".
The light's red. No one's coming. You stop till it's green. Period.
"But there was an emergency! I had to go!"
Fine, you still broke the law. Here's a ticket. Don't let it happen again under normal circumstances.
Men have desires? Emergencies? Don't get me started on the balls of yarn VPW rolled about being "disciplined", about having one's mind "under control", about being "like steel" when it came to The Word, The Word - nothing but the Word!!"
C'mon....anyone who lived through these years and abided by the constraints and is better off for it today knows - he was full of it. Canned, spammed and clammed - full of it thinking all this was "okay". Okay as long as no one took his butt out to the ol' "Back 40" and danced with a 2 X 4.
Gideon had 70 wives. Solomon had 1,000 including concubines. David had 19 sons by almost that many women. Jacob had 13 kids by 4 women. God Almighty doesn't have a problem with men simply having a sex drive and being opportunistic with it. How much "meaningfull consent" did any of Gideon's wives really have? Or David's or any of the others'?
In the Old Testament men were allowed to have more than one wife. Surely things are not stricter in the "Grace Administration" than they were under the Law. God must allow men to have intercourse with other women besides their wives, especially single women.
Answer:
Men were allowed to have more than one wife in the Old Testament (Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15). That is not the case in the Grace Administration as Corinthians, Timothy, and Titus make clear. Timothy and Titus are specifically addressed to leaders in the church. According to I Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, a "bishop" (episkopos), i.e., one who is a ruling elder, an overseer, in the church, must be the "husband of one wife." According to I timothy 3:12, the "deacons" (diakonos), i.e., one who serves in the Body of Christ, are also to be the "husband of one wife". Thus the Word of God clearly states that any man who serves in the Body of Christ must only have one wife. More than that, however, the Word of God declares that every Christian man should have just one wife and every Christian woman should have just one husband.
Corinthians, which is addressed to every believer, addresses the one-husband, one-wife issue. Corinthians says "Let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband" (I Corinthians 7:2). This verse clearly sets the monogamous Christian marriage. If the wife is sharing her husband with other wives, then the husband is not "her own," but is shared property. Similarly, a woman is not to have more than one husband, for then she would not be "his own." Thus although the Old Testament Law allowed for more than one wife, the New Testament does not.
Believers in the Grace Administration are not allowed to have more than one wife, and they are not allowed to "sleep around" either.
I Corinthians 7:1:
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
The essential meaning of the word "touch" in this context is "touch as if the woman were your wife." Bauer's lexicon handles the word "touch" as sexual intercourse with a woman. In the Grace Administration, the wife is to meet the sexual needs of the husband and vice-versa.
Even though the Old Testament Law made provision for a man to have more than one wife, there were laws governing people's sexual behavior. Each wife was to be well taken care of, having food, raiment and sexual companionship.
Deuteronomy 21:10
If he take him another wife, her food her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
Adultery was forbidden in the ten commandments and was punishable by death (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 20:10).
Deuteronomy 22:22
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that shall lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
If a man had sexual intercourse with a free woman who was betrothed, that was also considered either adultery or rape. If the act occurred in the city, the act was considered to be adultery and the man and the woman were stoned to death. If the act occurred out in the countryside, the act was considered rape and only the man was killed (Deuteronomy 22:23-27). Thus, whether the betrothed woman was willing or not, if a man had intercourse with a betrothed free woman, he was killed. If a man had sexual intercourse with a slave who was betrothed, there were still consequences, but they were less severe. The woman was scourged (whipped) and the man fined.
Leviticus 19:20-22
And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.
And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.
It is noteworthy that even though the consequences for adultery with a betrothed slave girl were less severe, the act itself was called a "sin" twice in verse 22.
If a man had sexual intercourse with a single woman, he had to marry her.
Exodus 22:16
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
The one exception to this occurred if the girl's father absolutely refused to let the man marry his daughter. In that case, the man was required to pay a fine equal to the "the dowry of virgins" (Exodus 22:17).
Even if a man found a single woman and raped her, he had to marry her.
Deuteronomy 22:28 and 29
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away (i.e. divorce her) all his days.
These two verses refer to rape, according to the context. Verses 26 and 27, just prior to these, refer to rape, and the words "lay hold on her" in verse 28 indicate rape. The New International Version translates Deuteronomy 22:28 and 29 as follows:
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.*
One reason the Law of Moses specified that single girls marry the man who seduced or raped them was that if a girl was not a virgin on her wedding night she could be stoned to death.
Deuteronomy 22:10-21
But if this thing (the woman's not being a virgin) be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
From the above information it can be seen that Israel under the Law was not a sexual panacea, where men had the sexual affections of women freely available to them. If they had more than one wife, they had to make sure that each was well taken care of. If he seduced or raped a married or betrothed woman, he was stoned to death. If he seduced or raped a single woman, he was forced to marry her.
People have tried to say that the Old Testament Law does not forbid a man to visit a prostitute or have intercourse with his slave girls. Although it is true that in practice men did visit prostitutes and take advantage of their slave girls, had the Law been properly applied, this would not have happened. Thus, if the Law was carried out, the master would have married his slave girl, and the prostitute would have married her first customer.**
From the above evidence it can be seen that the men of the Old Testament did not live in a society where they had vast sexual freedom. Yes, they could have more than one wife, while we today in the Grace Administration cannot. Although the reasons why God allowed more than one wife in the Old Testament but only allows one wife today may not be clear, one thing is clear: The Word of God does say that today, in the Grace Administration, marriage is to be monogamous. Having sexual intercourse with a woman who is not your wife is a sin.
My story (short version): In the spring of 1986 a girl came to me and said she had had sexual intercourse with Dr. Wierwille. I had no reason to doubt her as we were friends and she "had her head on her shoulders" in life. I started asking around to girls I knew always got to ride on the motor coach, fly on Ambassador 1, get "back room" duty instead of housekeeping or grounds, etc. Lo and behold, I talked to many women that were very candid about their sexual relations with leadership.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about those months was the developing picture was that this was not just practical sin based on lust but rather was sin based on wrong doctrine--many of the people involved thought it was okay with God. In fact, all of the "reasons" that I wrote about in my appendix came out of the mouths of women I talked to. I would ask them why they thought it was okay or why they were told it was okay and those were the reasons I got, so that is why I answered those specific questions.
VP did violate consent if he drugged anyone. He could have seen on the faces of some of those women that they weren't blessed. He was self serving. But he wasn't a pedophile!
(snip)
{So, his KNOWN victims over the legal age of consent should be thankful he
waited until they were of legal age of consent before he raped, molested,
drugged them? And he had to SEE THE FACES of SOME of those women to know
"that they weren't blessed" to see a problem? A man who supposedly
not only knew the Bible, but knew it well enough to teach others and claim
he had an understanding that surpassed all those of the last 2000 years?]
One thing that I'd add too - in regards to Kris's comments about VPW's mindset............
I dunno 'bout that, if that's true.
She may have felt he really thought it was okay...
And if he did that makes him hmmmmmmmmmm....pretty much disqualified from the teacher's chair or any role of responsibility in the bawdee of Kee-riste. You can't have somebody doing that to God's people -
But I kinda think he talked himself into it. I really don't believe, and this is just IMO, that he was really clean in his mind about it. I don't think he could be-
He had a wife and children, family and close intimate work associates like Ermal O, and others.
He would have had to have complete agreement and acceptance from his closest family and friends on this in order to not have the guilt and condemnation from the constantly embedded in his life.
Obviously he didn't because it was kept "under the covers" (little pervy humor there, sorry)
He kept it secret - or so he thought, I guess if you stumbled in on him by accident one day and went YIIIIKES! and had to discuss it with him later, it might not be so secret. Or if others talked about it amongst themselves to leverage position and stature in the company, that kind of thing. But he kept it secret and I don't believe from what I know and have read that -
All of his family member and closest associates all knew what he was doing, what he thought about it and that they were not all in 100% support and agreement with him and for him. Different levels of knowledge, some none, some all.
Soooooo....yeah. Or no. I don't think he was pure hearted about it if I can use that word in this context. Not at all, otherwise he would have been open about it.
Instead of lying. He reduced the lying later in life by not handling topics like marriage fidelity and adultery up close and personal and b s'd about their "real" meaning. Sorta like, "don't ask cauze I ain't telling but if i do I got real yarn for you". HE KNEW he couldn't face those topics publicly, so he didn't.
Thus IMO - sure he knew he was wrong, that's why he steered clear of the topic as much as possible.
I think Wierwille knew his behavior, drugging and raping women who trusted him, was not acceptible in society, and so he kept it secret. If he didn't think it was fundamentally okay for him to do it, then why did he keep on doing it for as long as he was physically able?
What does it say about Wierwille's attitude toward God that the quack was comfortably able to continue drugging and raping God's daughters?
What colossal arrogance for Wierwille to believe in his heart that God would tolerate the desecration of His daughters for Wierwille's NEEDS!?!
And Wierwille's colossal arrogance tainted EVERYTHING he taught in PFAL. It poisoned his definition of man, it poisoned his definition of salvation, it poisoned his doctrine of a believer's standing and state, it poisoned his definition of Jesus Christ and it poisoned his understanding of God Himself!
I've been out of TWI for 24 years, but I have continued to study the Bible. I am STILL finding ways in which PFAL perverted my understanding of God and His Word.
PFAL was an expression of the perverted arrogance in Wierwille's heart.
Love,
Steve
P.S. - and he high-jacked my credibility to sell the damned class.
Soooooo....yeah. Or no. I don't think he was pure hearted about it if I can use that word in this context. Not at all, otherwise he would have been open about it.
Instead of lying. He reduced the lying later in life by not handling topics like marriage fidelity and adultery up close and personal and b s'd about their "real" meaning. Sorta like, "don't ask cauze I ain't telling but if i do I got real yarn for you". HE KNEW he couldn't face those topics publicly, so he didn't.
Thus IMO - sure he knew he was wrong, that's why he steered clear of the topic as much as possible.
Just sayin'.
I agree.....wierwille knew he was deceiving himself.
Pour another drambuie and avoid the subject.....and only in the most private settings attempt to seduce with "spiritually mature can handle it" jargon.
The man DISQUALIFIED himself from teaching or leading anyone. The Timothy and Titus scriptures couldn't be any more plain, PERIOD.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
17
20
45
Popular Days
Nov 29
24
Nov 15
20
Dec 2
20
Nov 28
20
Top Posters In This Topic
skyrider 26 posts
WordWolf 17 posts
Ham 20 posts
waysider 45 posts
Popular Days
Nov 29 2011
24 posts
Nov 15 2011
20 posts
Dec 2 2011
20 posts
Nov 28 2011
20 posts
Popular Posts
WordWolf
vpw criticized hypocrites who cherry-picked the verses they wanted and skipped the verses they didn't like. Then, of course, vpw WAS a hypocrite who cherry-picked the verses he wanted and glossed o
Steve Lortz
Did Wierwille think it was wrong for him to drug and rape young women? I think he knew that general society would consider it to be wrong, but I also think he believed in his own heart that it was on
chockfull
Right. Because the Penn State and Syracuse guys were sexual predators, and VP just used rufees to .... ummmmm, wait. Oh wait, because those guys used their positions of authority to advance their
geisha779
So this is what things look like from that perch you claim for yourself in the heavenlies?
I don't know.....I think all sexual predators are rapacious criminals......equally evil. Those who enable them after having the facts don't fall too far behind in the order.......
Some yokel with a self-appointed anointing for pastoral care...who leads thousands of people away from the one true God while sexually assaulting the most vulnerable and unprotected young girls under the umbrella of his supposed ministry........and does it in the name of God.......this yokel just might be evil personified. Call me crazy, but knowing some of these wounded souls will never again seek a relationship with God.....will spend years trying to recover.......it doesn't seem like something that would come from a true child of the king. Someone who truly knows and loves the Lord....would never maim in His name. Someone who knows and loves the Lord would never ever minimize or try to defend this man using God's holy scriptures.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
maybe it depends on the technology..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Now you move your lips. You move your snout
Oink Oink Oink Snort Snort Snort
That's it! That's it! You're speaking the wonderful works of Mud!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
God (whoever that is, male, female, whatever he/she/it is..
bless you, friend..
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
If you read what's actually written in Romans 9-11, you'll see that NONE of it is addressed TO Israel. Romans 9:1-11:12 is ABOUT Israel, but it isn't addressed TO Israel. You'll also see that the gentiles addressed in 11:13 are Roman Christians, aleady born again, who came to Christ from gentile backgrounds. Wierwille LIED in PFAL about who this passage was addressed to, in the section of PFAL regarding the importance of getting "to whom addressed" right.
Talking about Wierwille moving boundaries!
What is "high-mindedness"? It's thinking more highly of yourself than you ought. It's thinking you are better than other people because you can sit up there in the heavenlies looking down on all the other poor saps. They're dead in their trespasses and sins! They deserve whatever they get!
And much as Wierwille would have liked us to believe that "fearing" God means respecting Him, the way we would respect an elderly uncle we no longer have to obey, that's not what is written, and that's not what it means.
"Fear" means "fear".
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Romans 1:1-7 (KJV)
1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
6Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
7To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 1:1-7 (NASB)
1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;
7 to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
[The entire LETTER of Paul to the Romans was a single letter, which was addressed to the Christians of Rome.
Anything in the actual letter that appears to be otherwise must be read in the context of THE ENTIRE LETTER.
Stop and think. It is SENSELESS to think that Paul would be instructed to write a letter to the Christians
and suddenly have it diverge for a page to address local Jews, and another page to address local Gentiles.
They would never READ the letter! It's all ONE letter. It talks TO Christians. Therefore, when it speaks
"to you Gentiles", it should be amazingly OBVIOUS it is not addressing Joe Gentile down the street, but
Christians in Rome- and when you remember that, it takes little thought to realize it's addressing the
born again GENTILES rather than unbelieving ones, just as some letters were addressed to born again JEWS
rather than unbelieving ones. ("To the 12 tribes"..)
I got to thinking about that after it was just used again today to excuse us from having to ACT rightly
since we're Christians. vpw misused this verse (what else is new?) to allow himself room to sin with
impunity and insist God wouldn't mind. He taught it accordingly, and we all bought into it for a time.
(Anyone still buying into it after their next read after this, however, has no excuse for just blowing
off what it REALLY means.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
When Wierwille was drugging and raping the least of his sisters,he was drugging and raping Jesus Christ. What are we supposed to think THAT looked like from a seat in the heavenlies?
Think God was happy with it?
Sheep or goat? Hmmmmmm....... Sheep or goat?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
johniam......this discussion started with questions, NOT stating that VP is worse than the Penn State guy, a pedophile. How can you possibly research or discuss anything in proper context WHEN YOU DON'T READ WHAT IS WRITTEN?
This discussion started with this post:
"Sexual predators and cover-ups are making news again. The Penn State scandal involving Jerry Sandusky, a defensive football coach under Joe Paterno, and young boys has rocked the college football world.
A whistleblower broke the story....... And last night, the Board of Trustees fired Graham Spanier​, president of Penn State, and Joe Paterno​, the legendary coach of the Nittany Lions.
YET.......The Way International has black-listed and denied any "whistle-blower" who came forward regarding sexual predators like Victor Paul Wierwille and L. Craig Martindale and others. Books have been written....detailing the sexual predatory ways and destruction of lives. Waydale and Greasespot, specifically, in the past 10 years has outed twi's ways of darkness.
Is it MORE evil to be a sexual predator of young boys?
Or, is it MORE evil to be a sexual predator of young girls.....who commit their lives to God and enter a secluded, religious-campus setting?
Or.....is a sexual predator a sexual predator, PERIOD???!!!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Totally agree......and it bears repeating!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Given the biblical allusions, perhaps this is a more appropriate image for Wierwille?
or maybe this one:
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
JB, your post made me heave. Heard most of this before, but - heard. Seeing it written... (vomit icon please). I feel distinctly queasy.
Haven't heard that one before; maybe some of that "special knowledge" for special groups (males).
Ex 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Matt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Wouldn't spiritual maturity be ensuring that one didn't look on a woman to lust after her? (What else is the purpose of porn?)
Oh, but of course. Adultery doesn't matter, in the renewed mind or whilst seated in the heavenlies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
See. Admit. Shoulder. It's not about VP, it's about Jesus Christ. I'd rather reach, touch, help.
Yes, the more I read your posts, the more I think you would like to reach out and touch. It sure would explain why you work so hard to defend a sexual predator
Do you know where those words come from? I didn't use them haphazardly. They are the governing verbs in each chorus of Joe Fair's song 'One by one'. (if I could reach just one, if I could touch just one, if I could help just one, one by one) Do you think Joe Fair is a pedophile also?
Just for the record, all of you are seated in the heavenlies, not just me. Instead of being thankful and enjoying your guaranteed eternal life and the down payment gift of holy spirit, you want to wallow in shame and bitterness for the rest of your days. Glad it's you and not me.
Kris' book did answer one question I had. I wanted to ask Excathedra, but didn't have the nerve. The question was, do you believe VP really believed the yarn about adultery is OK, or was he knowingly doing something he believed was wrong? He really DID believe it was all OK. The part where he told her "a man of God needs lots of women" something like that.
Gideon had 70 wives. Solomon had 1,000 including concubines. David had 19 sons by almost that many women. Jacob had 13 kids by 4 women. God Almighty doesn't have a problem with men simply having a sex drive and being opportunistic with it. How much "meaningfull consent" did any of Gideon's wives really have? Or David's or any of the others'? VP did violate consent if he drugged anyone. He could have seen on the faces of some of those women that they weren't blessed. He was self serving. But he wasn't a pedophile!
A sexual predator is a sexual predator PERIOD???? No. Interesting that a few years ago a woman who consentually had sex with VP multiple times was here. Didn't take long for venemous posters to run her off. Just like black democrats are with Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain. Just like feminists are with Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Like I said, glad it's you and not me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Johniam, please consider THESE scriptures which you may consider supersede the OT ones - being as these are addressed TO THE CHURCH TO WHICH WE NOW BELONG rather than to the OT patriarchal society. In any event, the references you quote simply state what the situation is - not state it with approval.
You may come round to thinking that God doesn't have a problem with man's sex drive (after all, He put it there) PROVIDED the man keeps his sex drive under proper control ... within proper boundaries ... boundaries somewhat like these:
LOVE HIS WIFE - not someone else's wife, and not "his wives."
A BISHOP - what's that, hmm, someone in some sort of leadership position in the church? Like the Man of God for that day and time?
THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE - rather speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Or do you think that gives a bishop/church leader to be ... a husband of one wife ... and keep a harem of other women?
(And what about the other requirements for a church leader? But let's not go there on this thread.)
THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE- second time it says that. And, again, to church leadership.
Even in the OT you will find this:
Again - the WIFE of thy youth - NOT the "wives" of thy youth - and not with the wife of the youth (young man) that you employ, know, go to church with, or have any other communication with, either.
While we're about it - lemme think - Adam's wives were called Eve and ... who else? Oh yeah, that's right. God only gave him ONE wife. How very mean of God, considering his later "approval" of 1000 women.
(edited to improve layout)
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
cara
I don't think I'm wallowing when I read your post and rejoice that I don't have to go around covered in a veil and subject to all those laws, that I've been just as liberated as a man has, that there is neither male nor female etc, that we have equal access to our Father and that we don't have to take that rubbish. "God doesn't have a problem with men being ..." - my breath leaves me just reading that sentence, picturing again those "opportunistic" randy old goats.
Feminists are against SP and MB because they're women? You make your arguments in such broad strokes that I'm not sure what you're saying, and as to your Joe Fair extrapolation, that makes no sense from any angle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I promise not to get too doctrinal but this outrageous post demands a response. There is a huge difference between providing for the unprotected women in the polygamist relationships of the OT where David and Solomon MARRIED multiple women. These vulnerable women fell under their protection with marriage or associated relationship. It was better than being alone and defenseless.......not the ideal situation but better than what might have happened to them if they were left unprotected. Any unscrupulous fool could have abused and used them and justified it with their "needs." No where does it say God approved of all those women.
However, the scriptures clearly present monogamy as related closest to God's plan for marriage. So much so that it is a firm guideline for leaders in the church......the husband of one wife.
There is a difference between understanding the need to marry for protection in the OT and jumping to the nasty conclusion that a man has need of multiple women because of his "urges" and that is why God allowed it. Geeze.....this is so typical of TWI thinking( and YES there is such an animal)......go right to the lustful rationalization....twist the scriptures and come up with a justification for sin. Make sure to use God to get the stamp of approval. Not only is this twisted...it is unbelievably sinful and offensive.
Instead of taking a look at the word in the flesh and how He treated women.....Johniam you have come up with some shallow and base reasoning from the holy scriptures to defend the indefensible. I would be reflective ....one of the most frightening verses in the bible is when Jesus says..."Depart, I never knew you."
How do we go from VP sexually assaulting young women who were influenced by him as an authority figure and spiritual leader to rationalization of lust because of OT marriage relationships? People in positions of authority ......real or perceived have a responsibility to their charges. A Godly man knows this and understands those boundaries. There is no such thing as consent in an authority laden relationship and it doesn't get more authoritative than the MOG.
.And for the record.....not everyone here is a Christian and just because they SIT in PFAL it is no guarantee they have eternal life. Pick up your bible turn to Corinthians and read what Paul is telling you about genuine and counterfeit. Pick up your bible and read what it means to be born-again.....it is not a formula it is a relationship. The content of faith is what is revealed in Romans 10: 9 & 10 they are not just some magic words.
I am totally disgusted.. . . . sometimes things are just too reminiscent of my time in TWI.....I am so glad to be free from all of it and away from people who call themselves Christian but still think like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Take all the Bible comparisons out and look at it from a purely secular viewpoint. It becomes more obvious.
The man was a chronic sexual predator, he had no remorse for his actions and he trained/encouraged his proteges to adapt a mindset and life style that mimicked his own. Maybe you were one of them. Were you, John?
Edit:
"God Almighty doesn't have a problem with men simply having a sex drive and being opportunistic with it."
Since you seem to be enamored of Biblical comparisons,can you point me in the direction of something in the scriptures that confirms this?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
This is really several different kinds of discussions and one of them IS biblical and doctrinal.
"Adultery" in the bible is fairly simple and straightforward - having a commitment made to one spouse that commits a primary relationship to that one spouse and having the primary relationship with another who is not your spouse. Sex is included in the primary relationship definition.
Jesus clarified this in Matthew 5: 27 and 28. Read it. It handles the O.T. commandments of "coveting" a "neighbor's wife" and committing adultery. He states clearly - to lust after another woman "already" commits adultery in the heart. It involves wanting something that's forbidden, that's off limits.
What's off limits? The coveting that leads to adultery. Jesus is speaking to a specific context here.
VPW was married, by all standards, legal, biblical, cultural. His side of this discourse isn't up for debate. Whether a woman was single or married, he was married. To produce a situation where the physical desire for him or another towards him was the outcome is wrong, per Jesus. It doesn't allow for a situation where the married man is free to have sexual relations with an unmarried woman. That's handled by the definition of "fornication". The N.T. epistles bring that up from time to time.
The basic biblical scenario that's painted in the N.T. is for men and women "not to burn" with desire - people are people, human. Desire is part of the human makeup. Marriage is the correct context for sex. Men who choose to be leaders in the church are instructed to be the "husbands of one wife". Have a relationship with one woman and maintain that one. Or just apply the old saying - don't s--t where you eat....don't screw where you work. Any idiot figures that out whether they aspire to a higher ideal or not.
The O.T. records of people like David who had multiple "wives" don't mean they were free to have sex with as many women as they wanted - just "marry" them and have at it. I'm surprised that's even still up for discussion. A little history is needed but I'm not going to teach it here. If anyone wants to be ignorant so be it but I promise you you're going to look pretty dammed stupid trying to pawn that off on anyone who's bothered to read more than what the Way published on that topic.
Another good point to remember in this topic is that within what we read in the Epistles is a chronology of sorts - there's (at minimum) 4 generations in the N. T. Bible we read today - Jesus and His followers are the 1st - John, Peter, Mary, all of them. The 2nd includes Paul, Luke, Mark and others we read about in Acts, etc. The 3rd would be those that grew out of Jerusalem, and then on from there are those that are represented by the people the epistles are written to.
We can assume that many if not most of these people had never seen or heard Jesus themselves and most may have never heard of Him at all, certainly not in the way they were hearing it all then (even counting those in Jerusalem that heard Peter on Pentecost - we don't know exactly what that produced across the geography of the middle East). So they were much like us in that respect, different in time and space but similar in this regard. It's obvious but it makes a difference to me to realize that these "letters" were already addressing a group removed from the actual "time of Christ" by 3, 4, 5 generations.
This is an important context to remember I think because they really give a view into what the earliest churches were like, what they were going through, the challenges they encountered. We can see this in Corinth, for instance and what's written to them, "Corinthians" 1 and 2 are very granular in the issues they address in parts.
Point being that the behavior and conduct of the people was being addressed, how they treated each other and carried out their business now that they were getting some miles under them, what worked, what didn't work. And how their leaders - the elders amongst them who helped in their oversight and well being - were to act.
It's clear, there's no fudge room IMO. The fact that we may try to fudge illustrates that we choose to ignore what the bible clearly says and instructs and instead try to get an acquittal based on a loop hole in an interpretation of some past example that we present in the hopes that our audience doesn't really know the facts - the actual truth of the facts - and can be bamboozled.
The fact that VPW really thought he was okay in this category indicates how far afield he was. Like a guy who says "I thought it was okay to go through that red light because I didn't see anyone coming from the other way - so it was okay".
The light's red. No one's coming. You stop till it's green. Period.
"But there was an emergency! I had to go!"
Fine, you still broke the law. Here's a ticket. Don't let it happen again under normal circumstances.
Men have desires? Emergencies? Don't get me started on the balls of yarn VPW rolled about being "disciplined", about having one's mind "under control", about being "like steel" when it came to The Word, The Word - nothing but the Word!!"
C'mon....anyone who lived through these years and abided by the constraints and is better off for it today knows - he was full of it. Canned, spammed and clammed - full of it thinking all this was "okay". Okay as long as no one took his butt out to the ol' "Back 40" and danced with a 2 X 4.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I appreciate your insight! Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/waydale/waydale-lawsuit/john-schoenheits-adultery--fornication_4.html
Appendix A
Reason:
In the Old Testament men were allowed to have more than one wife. Surely things are not stricter in the "Grace Administration" than they were under the Law. God must allow men to have intercourse with other women besides their wives, especially single women.
Answer:
Men were allowed to have more than one wife in the Old Testament (Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15). That is not the case in the Grace Administration as Corinthians, Timothy, and Titus make clear. Timothy and Titus are specifically addressed to leaders in the church. According to I Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, a "bishop" (episkopos), i.e., one who is a ruling elder, an overseer, in the church, must be the "husband of one wife." According to I timothy 3:12, the "deacons" (diakonos), i.e., one who serves in the Body of Christ, are also to be the "husband of one wife". Thus the Word of God clearly states that any man who serves in the Body of Christ must only have one wife. More than that, however, the Word of God declares that every Christian man should have just one wife and every Christian woman should have just one husband.
Corinthians, which is addressed to every believer, addresses the one-husband, one-wife issue. Corinthians says "Let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband" (I Corinthians 7:2). This verse clearly sets the monogamous Christian marriage. If the wife is sharing her husband with other wives, then the husband is not "her own," but is shared property. Similarly, a woman is not to have more than one husband, for then she would not be "his own." Thus although the Old Testament Law allowed for more than one wife, the New Testament does not.
Believers in the Grace Administration are not allowed to have more than one wife, and they are not allowed to "sleep around" either.
I Corinthians 7:1:
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
The essential meaning of the word "touch" in this context is "touch as if the woman were your wife." Bauer's lexicon handles the word "touch" as sexual intercourse with a woman. In the Grace Administration, the wife is to meet the sexual needs of the husband and vice-versa.
Even though the Old Testament Law made provision for a man to have more than one wife, there were laws governing people's sexual behavior. Each wife was to be well taken care of, having food, raiment and sexual companionship.
Deuteronomy 21:10
If he take him another wife, her food her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
Adultery was forbidden in the ten commandments and was punishable by death (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 20:10).
Deuteronomy 22:22
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that shall lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
If a man had sexual intercourse with a free woman who was betrothed, that was also considered either adultery or rape. If the act occurred in the city, the act was considered to be adultery and the man and the woman were stoned to death. If the act occurred out in the countryside, the act was considered rape and only the man was killed (Deuteronomy 22:23-27). Thus, whether the betrothed woman was willing or not, if a man had intercourse with a betrothed free woman, he was killed. If a man had sexual intercourse with a slave who was betrothed, there were still consequences, but they were less severe. The woman was scourged (whipped) and the man fined.
Leviticus 19:20-22
And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.
And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.
It is noteworthy that even though the consequences for adultery with a betrothed slave girl were less severe, the act itself was called a "sin" twice in verse 22.
If a man had sexual intercourse with a single woman, he had to marry her.
Exodus 22:16
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
The one exception to this occurred if the girl's father absolutely refused to let the man marry his daughter. In that case, the man was required to pay a fine equal to the "the dowry of virgins" (Exodus 22:17).
Even if a man found a single woman and raped her, he had to marry her.
Deuteronomy 22:28 and 29
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away (i.e. divorce her) all his days.
These two verses refer to rape, according to the context. Verses 26 and 27, just prior to these, refer to rape, and the words "lay hold on her" in verse 28 indicate rape. The New International Version translates Deuteronomy 22:28 and 29 as follows:
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.*
One reason the Law of Moses specified that single girls marry the man who seduced or raped them was that if a girl was not a virgin on her wedding night she could be stoned to death.
Deuteronomy 22:10-21
But if this thing (the woman's not being a virgin) be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
From the above information it can be seen that Israel under the Law was not a sexual panacea, where men had the sexual affections of women freely available to them. If they had more than one wife, they had to make sure that each was well taken care of. If he seduced or raped a married or betrothed woman, he was stoned to death. If he seduced or raped a single woman, he was forced to marry her.
People have tried to say that the Old Testament Law does not forbid a man to visit a prostitute or have intercourse with his slave girls. Although it is true that in practice men did visit prostitutes and take advantage of their slave girls, had the Law been properly applied, this would not have happened. Thus, if the Law was carried out, the master would have married his slave girl, and the prostitute would have married her first customer.**
From the above evidence it can be seen that the men of the Old Testament did not live in a society where they had vast sexual freedom. Yes, they could have more than one wife, while we today in the Grace Administration cannot. Although the reasons why God allowed more than one wife in the Old Testament but only allows one wife today may not be clear, one thing is clear: The Word of God does say that today, in the Grace Administration, marriage is to be monogamous. Having sexual intercourse with a woman who is not your wife is a sin.
www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/waydale/waydale-lawsuit/john-schoenheits-adultery--fornication_18.html
My story (short version): In the spring of 1986 a girl came to me and said she had had sexual intercourse with Dr. Wierwille. I had no reason to doubt her as we were friends and she "had her head on her shoulders" in life. I started asking around to girls I knew always got to ride on the motor coach, fly on Ambassador 1, get "back room" duty instead of housekeeping or grounds, etc. Lo and behold, I talked to many women that were very candid about their sexual relations with leadership.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about those months was the developing picture was that this was not just practical sin based on lust but rather was sin based on wrong doctrine--many of the people involved thought it was okay with God. In fact, all of the "reasons" that I wrote about in my appendix came out of the mouths of women I talked to. I would ask them why they thought it was okay or why they were told it was okay and those were the reasons I got, so that is why I answered those specific questions.
{So, his KNOWN victims over the legal age of consent should be thankful he
waited until they were of legal age of consent before he raped, molested,
drugged them? And he had to SEE THE FACES of SOME of those women to know
"that they weren't blessed" to see a problem? A man who supposedly
not only knew the Bible, but knew it well enough to teach others and claim
he had an understanding that surpassed all those of the last 2000 years?]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Sure, got lots of hot air like that.
One thing that I'd add too - in regards to Kris's comments about VPW's mindset............
I dunno 'bout that, if that's true.
She may have felt he really thought it was okay...
And if he did that makes him hmmmmmmmmmm....pretty much disqualified from the teacher's chair or any role of responsibility in the bawdee of Kee-riste. You can't have somebody doing that to God's people -
But I kinda think he talked himself into it. I really don't believe, and this is just IMO, that he was really clean in his mind about it. I don't think he could be-
He had a wife and children, family and close intimate work associates like Ermal O, and others.
He would have had to have complete agreement and acceptance from his closest family and friends on this in order to not have the guilt and condemnation from the constantly embedded in his life.
Obviously he didn't because it was kept "under the covers" (little pervy humor there, sorry)
He kept it secret - or so he thought, I guess if you stumbled in on him by accident one day and went YIIIIKES! and had to discuss it with him later, it might not be so secret. Or if others talked about it amongst themselves to leverage position and stature in the company, that kind of thing. But he kept it secret and I don't believe from what I know and have read that -
All of his family member and closest associates all knew what he was doing, what he thought about it and that they were not all in 100% support and agreement with him and for him. Different levels of knowledge, some none, some all.
Soooooo....yeah. Or no. I don't think he was pure hearted about it if I can use that word in this context. Not at all, otherwise he would have been open about it.
Instead of lying. He reduced the lying later in life by not handling topics like marriage fidelity and adultery up close and personal and b s'd about their "real" meaning. Sorta like, "don't ask cauze I ain't telling but if i do I got real yarn for you". HE KNEW he couldn't face those topics publicly, so he didn't.
Thus IMO - sure he knew he was wrong, that's why he steered clear of the topic as much as possible.
Just sayin'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I think Wierwille knew his behavior, drugging and raping women who trusted him, was not acceptible in society, and so he kept it secret. If he didn't think it was fundamentally okay for him to do it, then why did he keep on doing it for as long as he was physically able?
What does it say about Wierwille's attitude toward God that the quack was comfortably able to continue drugging and raping God's daughters?
What colossal arrogance for Wierwille to believe in his heart that God would tolerate the desecration of His daughters for Wierwille's NEEDS!?!
And Wierwille's colossal arrogance tainted EVERYTHING he taught in PFAL. It poisoned his definition of man, it poisoned his definition of salvation, it poisoned his doctrine of a believer's standing and state, it poisoned his definition of Jesus Christ and it poisoned his understanding of God Himself!
I've been out of TWI for 24 years, but I have continued to study the Bible. I am STILL finding ways in which PFAL perverted my understanding of God and His Word.
PFAL was an expression of the perverted arrogance in Wierwille's heart.
Love,
Steve
P.S. - and he high-jacked my credibility to sell the damned class.
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
I agree.....wierwille knew he was deceiving himself.
Pour another drambuie and avoid the subject.....and only in the most private settings attempt to seduce with "spiritually mature can handle it" jargon.
The man DISQUALIFIED himself from teaching or leading anyone. The Timothy and Titus scriptures couldn't be any more plain, PERIOD.
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.