quote:... I?d also like to invite topic suggestions from you all for the not-too-distant future, when I will have much more time.
Mike, please start a topic and respond one by one to Rafael's "PFAL Errors" list. I've been waiting for your response on those issues, and since you'll be having much more time soon, a response from you on those issues would be appreciated.
Last year's flurry of Mike Threads brought some needed excitement to GS, which I felt was getting a little boring. I was just mentioning the other day that we were getting a bit boring again, and voila (French for eureka) Mike announces new threads, with startling revelations. I can hardly wait! -->
Song:
Spelling and understandable sentence structure may not be a requirement here, but it sure helps other folks see what the poster is trying to say. Mocking or putting down posters who are less than clear is inexcuseable, however. My usual method of dealing is to skip over the more incomprehensible ones without comment. While I would never think of commenting on your mom's grammar, keep in mind that she was writing to her son who was familiar with her writing style, and not a bunch of strangers. By the way, her idiosyncratic style was more understandable than some of us here at GS!
Seaspray:
I see that you're back with your inanities after a three month absence. Wordwolf is not denying that it could snow in a month that is normally warm. I too have seen it snow in the summer: last week in June at Family Camp 1992. The point about the snow is that Wierwille's various descriptions of the alleged phenomena is inconsistant with each other, and with verifiable facts.
Galen:
The role of Wierwille apologist is one that I had not noticed in you before. I'll have to start reading your posts a little more closely.
Chickens in a hen-house? Hardly. Mike inspires attacks just as much for his insulting and condescending manner as for his doctrinal positions.
Oldies:
According to Mike, they are "apparent" errors, since PFAL, being the revealed Word of God for our time, could not possibly contain errors. Just sit tight and "master" PFAL and all will be revealed. -->
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
Uh, do you think that maybe Mary Magdalene had repented of her sin? Yet there is a pretty big cumulus cloud of witnesses to VP's life that he habitually sinned before, during, and after PFAL. If you can't see that, then maybe you just don't want to. (And BTW, I don't see any "gospels according to Mary M." in there, so her relationship with Jesus, though important, has little to do with what I was talking about.)
Dear Galen,
Living IN sin and committing a sin are two different things. I think the Bible disqualifies VPW from being the Man of God for Our Day and Time because of his living in sin and for sin, not because he committed sins. I hope that makes sense to you. I can forgive, but I would not elevate Wierwille to MOG status. Mike does.
Mike believes that Vic's rebellious nature actually made him a better candidate to receive the revelation of God's New Word, which flies in the face of what the Bible says. Your posts sound like a man who is trying to live biblically. Mike would have you throw out your Bible whenever it contradicts what Wierwille wrote.
Long Gone you completely missed the point. The Pharisees were claiming God as their father, and further sought to justify their claim on the basis of sexual purity - hence their exclaimation of, "We be not born of fornication".
Now why did they even bring that up if they weren't already so self-righteous and sure of themselves? But apparently that was their entire premise for claiming for themselves godliness and holiness. Remember the story about the woman caught in adultry? (How come they never bothered to seek out someone caught in the act of murder or robbery to trap Jesus instead?)
I don't know how one could make a distinction between living in sin and committing a sin, unless they were familiar with both acts themselves. But there have always been people around who are quick to pluck the splinter out of someone else's eye without beholding the moat in their own eye first. They aren't out to help anyone see any better because that's certainly not their intent - it's only to condemn.
Regarding ?fornication,? Ezekiel 16 might be enlightening. (Think ?metaphor.?)
Regarding this: ?They aren't out to help anyone see any better because that's certainly not their intent - it's only to condemn.? Matthew 23 and similar passages might be enlightening.
Regarding Shaz's distinction between living in sin and committing sin, I don't pretend to speak for her, but I think I understand what she meant. She clarified herself somewhat, when she said, "I think the Bible disqualifies VPW from being the Man of God for Our Day and Time because of his living in sin and for sin, not because he committed sins. Living "for sin" is a pretty strong indictment of a "man of God."
Actually, I?ve been getting into reading two other threads. Naturally, by staying off them I don?t disrupt them, and they take interesting twists.
I?m reading the ?Interesting Twists...? thread of LornaDoone and loving it. Many good points made there. Also interesting, in a Chubby Checker way, is Roy?s ?Is It All the Word of God? thread. In both threads I take great comfort in seeing certain ideas re-surface.
But I?ve got to get back to my homework of answering THIS thread. I?m WAAAAY behind!
quote:I don't know how one could make a distinction between living in sin and committing a sin, unless they were familiar with both acts themselves.
Committing a sin = doing something contrary to God's expressed will. In a godly individual, followed by regret, repentance, and an attempt to not repeat the error.
Living in sin = continually making the same sin over and over, knowingly and on purpose, without regret.
I believe the Bible makes this same distinction. AND it just makes sense. An unrepentant playground bully should not be played with by the other children, lest he abuse them, too. But a child who has regretted his actions might be trusted gradually, as he proves he has truly changed.
I don't have to be a serial killer to know that reveling in murdering people is worse than killing someone once by accident. I don't have to be a serial rapist to know that such a person is evil, and to be disapproved of.
I have seen this "all have sinned, so don't judge VPW" doctrine come up more than once on Greasespot. I was surprised by it at first, because it just seems obvious to me that the intentional evil-doer is not in the same category as the person who is merely being human. I'm beginning to think that it is one of the more insidious bits of Waybrain to ever be propounded by that organization. The "we are all sinners" doctrine, along with the doctrine of the lockbox and "being spiritual enough to handle it" set the stage for Leadership, including Wierwille, to get away with their evil without being stopped.
Thanks, Long Gone, you understood what I was saying, as I think many others do.
Spelling and understandable sentence structure may not be a requirement here, but it sure helps other folks see what the poster is trying to say. Mocking or putting down posters who are less than clear is inexcuseable, however. My usual method of dealing is to skip over the more incomprehensible ones without comment. While I would never think of commenting on your mom's grammar, keep in mind that she was writing to her son who was familiar with her writing style, and not a bunch of strangers. By the way, her idiosyncratic style was more understandable than some of us here at GS!
(QUOTE)
Hiya Oakspear!!!!!!!
10-4 Oak. Roger that. I dig "idiosyncratic style", because you hit that one on the head fer shure. & LMAO that her style "... was more understandable than some of us here at GS!" She put more sence in my head than I have lifetimes to spend it. She's one kewl lady of heart.
***
(QUOTE) originally posted by Hope R.:
Song - you da bomb! I didn't know JACK!
(QUOTE)
Oh come on now HopeR, you didn't know I was oneyed? I am shocked
;)-->
***
And Mike, good to see you have returned 5 pages later. Seems you have an audience.
I have seen this "all have sinned, so don't judge VPW" doctrine come up more than once on Greasespot. I was surprised by it at first, because it just seems obvious to me that the intentional evil-doer is not in the same category as the person who is merely being human. I'm beginning to think that it is one of the more insidious bits of Waybrain to ever be propounded by that organization. The "we are all sinners" doctrine, along with the doctrine of the lockbox and "being spiritual enough to handle it" set the stage for Leadership, including Wierwille, to get away with their evil without being stopped.
Sorry, but I don't believe the rap that VPW was an "intentional evil-doer" any more than all of the Mike's out there who only wish to canonize him right into saint-hood with all their rap.
I'm not going to give you any more time than any of the "Mikes" out there, or anybody else the pleasure of wasting one second of my valuable time debating either one of these extremist points of view, because both views about VPW are erroneous and close-minded. Both viewpoints make be turn and just want to puke!
I've got a lot more valuable things to do with my time other than getting involved in some idiotic "holier-than-thou" cat and dog fight that would outlast the Energizer Bunny - it keeps on going and going and going ...
[This message was edited by What The Hay on December 28, 2003 at 23:56.]
quote:Sorry, but I don't believe the rap that VPW was an "intentional evil-doer" any more than all of the Mike's out there who only wish to canonize him right into saint-hood with all their rap.
Attempting to be balanced and in the middle is commendable, but it in regards to VPW/TWI it seems that the middle ground just does not make much sense at all. To refuse the possibility or to deny that VPW intentionlly did evil (sin) is to disregard and reject the personal testimonies of many eye witnesses. It's sticking you head in the sand. All you have to do is take the accounts of the witnesses and then compare them to the scriptures that talk about evil dooers, false prophets,etc.
quote:I'm not going to give you any more time than any of the "Mikes" out there, or anybody else the pleasure of wasting one second of my valuable time debating either one of these extremist points of view, because both views about VPW are erroneous and close-minded. Both viewpoints make be turn and just want to puke!
Yes, both points of are are "extreme" but this is an extreme issue. Extremeness is a poor excuse for not considering a point of view. Many ideas first thought to be extreme sometimes end up having a lot of substance. Is the Bible "extreme" when it describes the behavior of evil doers and false prophets? When it clearly describes them and warns us of them? Is it extreme to look at VPW's "extreme" behavior and make an honest assessment based upon what scripture says? I don't think so.
What is closed-minded is to refuse to even take a look or to consider the possibility because it is too "extreme".
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
quote:Sorry, but I don't believe the rap that VPW was an "intentional evil-doer" ...
I'd say that VPW was in fact an intentional evil-doer. But so is everyone else! It's called sinning. It's called not being perfect.
Unless one believe's the last time they sinned, it was accidental?
I venture to say that if a Greasepot poster's sins were commented on, ad infinitem, and every sin and bad habit pattern, were encouraged to be brought forth and out in the open on the internet, the way they encourage and bring forth Dr. Wierwille's sins, it wouldn't be a pretty sight. It would be very nasty. It could be very devastating.
Check out Matthew 5 and ask yourself if you've been perfect lately, as God is perfect.
Were everybody's sins acknowledged publickly, most people's would not be considered criminal to the extreme extent that their names and addresses would be published to warn the rest of humankind about their presence in the area. That ought to say something about the extreme nature of Wierwille's sin.
When I first got involved in TWI, my lifestyle was rather extremely sinful - I have to admit. I couldn't figure our whether the wonderful sounding promises that my fellowship coordinator put in front of me were true or not, so I put myself in his hands; I decided that I would do whatever he told me to do for a month and, at the end of the month, if he was telling me the truth, I would be his faithful friend for life, but if he was lying to me, I would kill him because no one should be able to say the kinds of things, demanding the kind of loyalty of your total being that he was, be lying to you, and live.
Admittedly, that was extreme, but I had never made that kind of decision about the life of another person before. That should show you a little of what I feel about the extremity of Wierwille's sin.
And my fellowship coordinator never even raped me or anyone that I loved.
You guys who are acting like Wierwille's treachery was just a sin like anybody else's amaze me. Even Wierwille said that the higher you go spiritually, the more accountable you are to God. If he were here, his words would post against himself.
Exactly, Thomas! I sin. I have done things that I am not proud of. Put them on the Internet, and I would be ashamed. But put them up next to what Wierwille or Martindale did, and I would come up smelling like a rose.
I teach dance and gymnastics to children for a living. If I had a record of abusing children, would you want me teaching your child? But if I lied to my husband about taking out the trash, would it matter to you? But what if I had a long record of abusing children, and I advertised myself as the greatest expert in teaching gymnastics since the first century?
TWI taught that sin is sin in God's eyes, but that doesn't mean it should all be handled the same by US. Otherwise, Jeffrey Dahmer would still be walking the streets. Heck, he's just a sinner....
Let's not forget that VPW didn't like the word sin. He called it broken fellowship. A much softer sounding phrase and less demanding of a holy lifestyle.
Umm...aren't there some standards in the Bible for people who are "overseers" and "overseers of overseers?" At a minimum, if VPW weren't meeting those requirements, why wasn't he removed from his position? I believe in these cases God DOES make a distinction beyond just "being a sinner." It disqualifies you from being in that position until you clean up your act. Or so VPW AND LCM taught.
So, IMO, whether you fall on either side of the debate, TWI still said one thing and did another.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
6
20
5
Popular Days
Dec 26
49
Dec 27
27
Dec 29
14
Dec 28
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 9 posts
Hope R. 6 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 20 posts
seaspray 5 posts
Popular Days
Dec 26 2003
49 posts
Dec 27 2003
27 posts
Dec 29 2003
14 posts
Dec 28 2003
14 posts
oldiesman
Mike, please start a topic and respond one by one to Rafael's "PFAL Errors" list. I've been waiting for your response on those issues, and since you'll be having much more time soon, a response from you on those issues would be appreciated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Last year's flurry of Mike Threads brought some needed excitement to GS, which I felt was getting a little boring. I was just mentioning the other day that we were getting a bit boring again, and voila (French for eureka) Mike announces new threads, with startling revelations. I can hardly wait!
-->
Song:
Spelling and understandable sentence structure may not be a requirement here, but it sure helps other folks see what the poster is trying to say. Mocking or putting down posters who are less than clear is inexcuseable, however. My usual method of dealing is to skip over the more incomprehensible ones without comment. While I would never think of commenting on your mom's grammar, keep in mind that she was writing to her son who was familiar with her writing style, and not a bunch of strangers. By the way, her idiosyncratic style was more understandable than some of us here at GS!
Seaspray:
I see that you're back with your inanities after a three month absence. Wordwolf is not denying that it could snow in a month that is normally warm. I too have seen it snow in the summer: last week in June at Family Camp 1992. The point about the snow is that Wierwille's various descriptions of the alleged phenomena is inconsistant with each other, and with verifiable facts.
Galen:
The role of Wierwille apologist is one that I had not noticed in you before. I'll have to start reading your posts a little more closely.
Chickens in a hen-house? Hardly. Mike inspires attacks just as much for his insulting and condescending manner as for his doctrinal positions.
Oldies:
According to Mike, they are "apparent" errors, since PFAL, being the revealed Word of God for our time, could not possibly contain errors. Just sit tight and "master" PFAL and all will be revealed.
-->
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Thanks, Long Gone!
seaspray,
Uh, do you think that maybe Mary Magdalene had repented of her sin? Yet there is a pretty big cumulus cloud of witnesses to VP's life that he habitually sinned before, during, and after PFAL. If you can't see that, then maybe you just don't want to. (And BTW, I don't see any "gospels according to Mary M." in there, so her relationship with Jesus, though important, has little to do with what I was talking about.)
Dear Galen,
Living IN sin and committing a sin are two different things. I think the Bible disqualifies VPW from being the Man of God for Our Day and Time because of his living in sin and for sin, not because he committed sins. I hope that makes sense to you. I can forgive, but I would not elevate Wierwille to MOG status. Mike does.
Mike believes that Vic's rebellious nature actually made him a better candidate to receive the revelation of God's New Word, which flies in the face of what the Bible says. Your posts sound like a man who is trying to live biblically. Mike would have you throw out your Bible whenever it contradicts what Wierwille wrote.
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
Long Gone you completely missed the point. The Pharisees were claiming God as their father, and further sought to justify their claim on the basis of sexual purity - hence their exclaimation of, "We be not born of fornication".
Now why did they even bring that up if they weren't already so self-righteous and sure of themselves? But apparently that was their entire premise for claiming for themselves godliness and holiness. Remember the story about the woman caught in adultry? (How come they never bothered to seek out someone caught in the act of murder or robbery to trap Jesus instead?)
I don't know how one could make a distinction between living in sin and committing a sin, unless they were familiar with both acts themselves. But there have always been people around who are quick to pluck the splinter out of someone else's eye without beholding the moat in their own eye first. They aren't out to help anyone see any better because that's certainly not their intent - it's only to condemn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
What The Hay,
Regarding ?fornication,? Ezekiel 16 might be enlightening. (Think ?metaphor.?)
Regarding this: ?They aren't out to help anyone see any better because that's certainly not their intent - it's only to condemn.? Matthew 23 and similar passages might be enlightening.
Regarding Shaz's distinction between living in sin and committing sin, I don't pretend to speak for her, but I think I understand what she meant. She clarified herself somewhat, when she said, "I think the Bible disqualifies VPW from being the Man of God for Our Day and Time because of his living in sin and for sin, not because he committed sins. Living "for sin" is a pretty strong indictment of a "man of God."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
5 pages and 2 1/2 days later and no reply from Mike????
Makes me go "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm".
Hope R. color>size>face>
What a long, strange trip it's been!size>face>color>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hope,
That's my reaction too.
I post two tiny times, and VIOLA! ... here's a multifaceted multipaged discussion raging all around. hmmmmmmmmmmm
Makes one wonder what's going to happen when I sink a few hours a day into this board again.
I've got a lot of homework to just answer some of these multi facets from just this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Actually, I?ve been getting into reading two other threads. Naturally, by staying off them I don?t disrupt them, and they take interesting twists.
I?m reading the ?Interesting Twists...? thread of LornaDoone and loving it. Many good points made there. Also interesting, in a Chubby Checker way, is Roy?s ?Is It All the Word of God? thread. In both threads I take great comfort in seeing certain ideas re-surface.
But I?ve got to get back to my homework of answering THIS thread. I?m WAAAAY behind!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
What the hay, WhatTheHay? You said,
Committing a sin = doing something contrary to God's expressed will. In a godly individual, followed by regret, repentance, and an attempt to not repeat the error.
Living in sin = continually making the same sin over and over, knowingly and on purpose, without regret.
I believe the Bible makes this same distinction. AND it just makes sense. An unrepentant playground bully should not be played with by the other children, lest he abuse them, too. But a child who has regretted his actions might be trusted gradually, as he proves he has truly changed.
I don't have to be a serial killer to know that reveling in murdering people is worse than killing someone once by accident. I don't have to be a serial rapist to know that such a person is evil, and to be disapproved of.
I have seen this "all have sinned, so don't judge VPW" doctrine come up more than once on Greasespot. I was surprised by it at first, because it just seems obvious to me that the intentional evil-doer is not in the same category as the person who is merely being human. I'm beginning to think that it is one of the more insidious bits of Waybrain to ever be propounded by that organization. The "we are all sinners" doctrine, along with the doctrine of the lockbox and "being spiritual enough to handle it" set the stage for Leadership, including Wierwille, to get away with their evil without being stopped.
Thanks, Long Gone, you understood what I was saying, as I think many others do.
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
(QUOTE) orginally posted by Oakspear:
Song:
Spelling and understandable sentence structure may not be a requirement here, but it sure helps other folks see what the poster is trying to say. Mocking or putting down posters who are less than clear is inexcuseable, however. My usual method of dealing is to skip over the more incomprehensible ones without comment. While I would never think of commenting on your mom's grammar, keep in mind that she was writing to her son who was familiar with her writing style, and not a bunch of strangers. By the way, her idiosyncratic style was more understandable than some of us here at GS!
(QUOTE)
Hiya Oakspear!!!!!!!
10-4 Oak. Roger that. I dig "idiosyncratic style", because you hit that one on the head fer shure. & LMAO that her style "... was more understandable than some of us here at GS!" She put more sence in my head than I have lifetimes to spend it. She's one kewl lady of heart.
***
(QUOTE) originally posted by Hope R.:
Song - you da bomb! I didn't know JACK!
(QUOTE)
Oh come on now HopeR, you didn't know I was oneyed? I am shocked
***
And Mike, good to see you have returned 5 pages later. Seems you have an audience.
Rok the words dude.
My ante of thots are on the table.
Song
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Great post Shaz - You nailed it.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Hey I gotta many a nail gun with compressor and 300' of hose...
I ditto Goey's post to Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seth
Dude following up on my other post to this thread.
Dude you are the duderino, and dude don't worry nobody can touch your dudeness.
So keep it real yo!
Holla!
Seth
"Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
Sorry, but I don't believe the rap that VPW was an "intentional evil-doer" any more than all of the Mike's out there who only wish to canonize him right into saint-hood with all their rap.
I'm not going to give you any more time than any of the "Mikes" out there, or anybody else the pleasure of wasting one second of my valuable time debating either one of these extremist points of view, because both views about VPW are erroneous and close-minded. Both viewpoints make be turn
and just want to puke!
I've got a lot more valuable things to do with my time other than getting involved in some idiotic "holier-than-thou" cat and dog fight that would outlast the Energizer Bunny - it keeps on going and going and going ...
[This message was edited by What The Hay on December 28, 2003 at 23:56.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I hear you, What The Hey.
So, tell me, then, which is your position....
A) All the women who claim vpw raped or molested them are lying
(We've heard this one before)
B) vpw raped and molested women for their own good
(We've heard this one before)
C) vpw unintentionally did evil when he arranged to have young,
impressionable women brought to him in private, plyed them with
alcohol, and fed them a line about being spiritual enough to
disregard his marriage vows.
(This would be a new one.)
So, which one isn't too "extreme" for you?
You know, down in my area, there's this big gaping hole where some
buildings used to stand until a few years ago. Some people think
it's inconceivable that they could be struck down by hijacked
airplanes.
However, that's what happened anyway. Extremist or not, it's true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
What the Hay posted:
Attempting to be balanced and in the middle is commendable, but it in regards to VPW/TWI it seems that the middle ground just does not make much sense at all. To refuse the possibility or to deny that VPW intentionlly did evil (sin) is to disregard and reject the personal testimonies of many eye witnesses. It's sticking you head in the sand. All you have to do is take the accounts of the witnesses and then compare them to the scriptures that talk about evil dooers, false prophets,etc. Yes, both points of are are "extreme" but this is an extreme issue. Extremeness is a poor excuse for not considering a point of view. Many ideas first thought to be extreme sometimes end up having a lot of substance. Is the Bible "extreme" when it describes the behavior of evil doers and false prophets? When it clearly describes them and warns us of them? Is it extreme to look at VPW's "extreme" behavior and make an honest assessment based upon what scripture says? I don't think so.What is closed-minded is to refuse to even take a look or to consider the possibility because it is too "extreme".
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Gee Mike,
You sure draw a crowd. And you haven't even posted anything of any substance yet..
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I'd say that VPW was in fact an intentional evil-doer. But so is everyone else! It's called sinning. It's called not being perfect.
Unless one believe's the last time they sinned, it was accidental?
I venture to say that if a Greasepot poster's sins were commented on, ad infinitem, and every sin and bad habit pattern, were encouraged to be brought forth and out in the open on the internet, the way they encourage and bring forth Dr. Wierwille's sins, it wouldn't be a pretty sight. It would be very nasty. It could be very devastating.
Check out Matthew 5 and ask yourself if you've been perfect lately, as God is perfect.
Matthew 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Were everybody's sins acknowledged publickly, most people's would not be considered criminal to the extreme extent that their names and addresses would be published to warn the rest of humankind about their presence in the area. That ought to say something about the extreme nature of Wierwille's sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
When I first got involved in TWI, my lifestyle was rather extremely sinful - I have to admit. I couldn't figure our whether the wonderful sounding promises that my fellowship coordinator put in front of me were true or not, so I put myself in his hands; I decided that I would do whatever he told me to do for a month and, at the end of the month, if he was telling me the truth, I would be his faithful friend for life, but if he was lying to me, I would kill him because no one should be able to say the kinds of things, demanding the kind of loyalty of your total being that he was, be lying to you, and live.
Admittedly, that was extreme, but I had never made that kind of decision about the life of another person before. That should show you a little of what I feel about the extremity of Wierwille's sin.
And my fellowship coordinator never even raped me or anyone that I loved.
You guys who are acting like Wierwille's treachery was just a sin like anybody else's amaze me. Even Wierwille said that the higher you go spiritually, the more accountable you are to God. If he were here, his words would post against himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Exactly, Thomas! I sin. I have done things that I am not proud of. Put them on the Internet, and I would be ashamed. But put them up next to what Wierwille or Martindale did, and I would come up smelling like a rose.
I teach dance and gymnastics to children for a living. If I had a record of abusing children, would you want me teaching your child? But if I lied to my husband about taking out the trash, would it matter to you? But what if I had a long record of abusing children, and I advertised myself as the greatest expert in teaching gymnastics since the first century?
TWI taught that sin is sin in God's eyes, but that doesn't mean it should all be handled the same by US. Otherwise, Jeffrey Dahmer would still be walking the streets. Heck, he's just a sinner....
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Oldies,
That is the old "nobody's perfect" defense again. Pretty lame if you ask me.
Why do you suppose the bible then reproves and condemns evil doing and warns of such people like false teachers, false prophets and the like?
Wny didn't Paul just say "Oops ... nobody's perfect" in regards to these nice folks?
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Let's not forget that VPW didn't like the word sin. He called it broken fellowship. A much softer sounding phrase and less demanding of a holy lifestyle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Umm...aren't there some standards in the Bible for people who are "overseers" and "overseers of overseers?" At a minimum, if VPW weren't meeting those requirements, why wasn't he removed from his position? I believe in these cases God DOES make a distinction beyond just "being a sinner." It disqualifies you from being in that position until you clean up your act. Or so VPW AND LCM taught.
So, IMO, whether you fall on either side of the debate, TWI still said one thing and did another.
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.