Long before I took the class, while in High School, I theorized on something troubling me, that seemed to be stamped into human genetics. I first noticed it in the 6th grade, and my young RC mind couldn't fathom it at all. But by High School I think I knew the score.
I believe the modern "Me Too" movement is onto roughly the same troubling thing.
My summation of what I saw early in my High School scientific life was "The Football Captain always gets his choice of the cheerleaders." I didn't like it, being skinny and doomed to football failure, but I could see it was true.
Fifty years later and the Me Too people point it out in nearly every power based human organization. I didn't bat an eyelash at King David's choice of the cheerleaders. It bothered me, as usual, but it didn't surprise me.
It's amazing what gets conflated, so I'll point it out.
A) "The Football Captain always gets his choice of the cheerleaders." The women go for the guy who has one or more of the following: looks, money, popularity, From them, he can select among those he finds most favorable from: looks, popularity. (The system points to that and not to other selectors. Which selectors are GOOD selectors are a whole discussion.) So, the teenage women make freewill choices who to make themselves approachable towards (or approach them), and the teenage men make freewill choices who to approach (or be available to approach.) The "problem" here is that the "top" of both indices pair off (the first string athletes with the first-string cheerleaders.) That's actually sensible. But those who are left out can be troubled by it. It's reality- wealth and other factors are inherited and not distributed by merit. But the adolescents all made their own decisions. They could easily choose someone not on the other index based on their own reasons or even a whim. All legal, all acceptable, all of it not immoral.
B) King David ruling Israel under the Mosaic Law- which stressed fidelity in marriage and had NO clause permitting otherwise, even for a King. He chose to break his own law and exert his unequal power over a married woman and had an affair with her. We know nothing about her state of mind, but we know he had the power to break the law at will and have her forced to "cooperate." He even had the power to have her husband killed and make it look like an accident- and he did. She was not free to make a choice there no matter what she actually thought or felt. King David operated outside The Law, and acted immorally.
And yet, someone claimed that "TECHNICALLY" this was all right. It was not-it was illegal. The only explanation as to why someone thought it would be legal was someone claiming that "TECHNICALLY" "all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king." However, that was a notion contrary to Scripture- thus the absence of verses supporting that bald claim.
The idea that powerful people in Hollywood can rape and molest and get away with it goes along with that sort of justification- yet it's illegal in the US just as it's illegal under the Mosaic Law. That has nothing to do with teenagers choosing who to date.
(pointing above and to the right of Mike) Look, Mike, there goes the point.
First we're not talking about a football team or a corporate board room, we're talking about the family of God and a supposed MOG who's supposed to have a more disipline than natural men on a football team or in a corporate board room. Further, he's supposed to be an example for the rest of us. I mean, if he doesn't obey God with his moral sins, why should I obey God in my venial sins?
Second, we're talking about an ideology that made it all possible.
sorry - I find it hard to believe you didn’t have some great admiration for wierwille himself back then when in even some more recent threads you often defended him to the hilt in spite of all the facts and evidence to the contrary presented by Grease Spotters.
In light of that - I tend to think you were pretty much incapable of separating the ideas from the author of those ideas - as evidenced by the circular logic you used on one particular recent thread: is PLAF god-breathed ?...which often went along the lines of PFALis god-breathed because wierwille said it’s god-breathed.
It's good to bring this up again periodically. People who are real pfal fans always seem ready to excuse vpw of any of his immoral and illegal acts in the process. Sometimes they say they don't make a big deal about the man, other times they're more honest about it. And it's never people who spent a lot of personal time with him who say that. They either never met him, or were introduced in passing...so it's easy to invent a vpw who isn't based on reality who is worthy of respect, and thus, respected.
No, your into trying to sell PLAF as theopneustos.
Not so. I was trying to do that, up to about ten days ago. Then I stopped, although it may have leaked out a tiny bit.
So tell me, since its in PLAF books, is the line "All the women in the kingdom belong to the king" theopneustos?
.Pretty sure it is.... and it includes the word "technically"
When I heard it in the class immediately thought of my Football Captain theory. Anyone who thought they could use that line in the class to abuse women was a moron. That happens; but not to me. I knew EXACTLY what was meant about the King getting anyone he wanted. Look around. That's how it happens. It's not right but it IS universal. I don't like it, but I recognize it as ubiquitous.
So tell me, since its in PLAF books, is the line "All the women in the kingdom belong to the king" theopneustos?
.Pretty sure it is.... and it includes the word "technically"
When I heard it in the class immediately thought of my Football Captain theory. Anyone who thought they could use that line in the class to abuse women was a moron.
So then your saying Saint Vic was a moron.
As Wordwolf pointed out, there's no such Mosaic law, so where did it come from?
It was Saint Vic offering a rationalization for his behavior.
And yet, someone claimed that "TECHNICALLY" this was all right.
My take on the word "technically" is different. When guys talk in a barber shop and some uses the word :technically" it's often used in a demeaning sense. Example: A technicality of the law, as spoken by barber shop patrons (not lawyers) is often not in line with common sense or with moral law.
When I first heard this David line in PFAL it was obvious that David was WRONG morally, and that is stated as well. That he would get any woman in the kingdom is just THE WAY IT IS in human organizations. This having his way isn't moral, isn't the way good folks do things, but it IS UNFORTUNATELY the way it often gets done in the dog eat dog real world.
I had come to all these conclusion myself prior to hearing the class.
I knew the Captain of the Football team didn't just select his favorite girl to take her to the malt shop. Some of them used their looks and bravado to get the date, and then often used alcohol. In college most guys used that plus pot and other drugs to weaken girls. If date rape drugs had been in vented when I was in college half my friends would have tried them. I was appalled by it. I grew up with three baby sisters, and I was their protector. That's how I was raised. I was taught before puberty to protect them; after puberty I knew why.
WW you may have had better friends in High School, but I knew a lot of ruthless ones. All the Harvey Wienstein tactics we heard about recently I've known to be used by Jr High and High School and college boys.
The PFAL line just reflects the misfortunes of human life. What significance I took from it is that Biblical people of long agoi go through pretty much the same junk we have to go through. It broke down some of the distance I felt between me and Biblical times and people. To think that that line could be used to twist an innocent mind into sexual perversity is perverse in itself, and in a worse way.
As Wordwolf pointed out, there's no such Mosaic law, so where did it come from?
As I said, I fear it is stamped into our genetics, both sexes. It's not civil, but it procreates in times severe austerity: famine, war, petulance, weather. That's why so many men want to be king.
My take on the word "technically" is different. When guys talk in a barber shop and some uses the word :technically" it's often used in a demeaning sense. Example: A technicality of the law, as spoken by barber shop patrons (not lawyers) is often not in line with common sense or with moral law.
When I first heard this David line in PFAL it was obvious that David was WRONG morally, and that is stated as well. That he would get any woman in the kingdom is just THE WAY IT IS in human organizations. This having his way isn't moral, isn't the way good folks do things, but it IS UNFORTUNATELY the way it often gets done in the dog eat dog real world.
All women in the kingdom belong to the king has nothing to do with peoples choices in pairing off. It has to do with Saint Vic rationalizing why he could do anything he wanted to ministry women.
The statement "All the women in the kingdom belong to the king" was not presented in the context of someone wanting to pair off with David. It was presented in the context of David being able to exercise a rationalized right (rationalized right because there's no Mosaic law to back him up) on Bethsheba (after he saw her finishing her bath). So, Bathsheba's choice on who to pair off with never even entered the discussion. So, as always, your attempting to interject something that isn't there.
Quote
I had come to all these conclusion myself prior to hearing the class.
It's amazing how many wong conclusions you can come to.
Quote
The PFAL line just reflects the misfortunes of human life.
No, it reflects Saint Vic's rationalization and mindset. As , once again, where did it come from? The context doesn't suggest your claim.
Quote
What significance I took from it is that Biblical people of long agoi go through pretty much the same junk we have to go through. If broke down some of the distance I felt between me and Biblical times and people. To think that that line could be used to twist an innocent mind into sexual perversity is perverse in itself, and in a worse way.
Well, so far we have Saint Vic as perverse and a moron.
Because he twisted it in the worst way.
Read LOSING THE WAY and you'll see how Saint Vic twisted that statement into a pretzel.
Read LOSING THE WAY and you'll see how Saint Vic twisted that statement into a pretzel.
I had never heard the David and Bathsheba story until taking the class. When the movie came out we RC children were forbidden to see it, so I heard the two names only. I had never heard the name Uriah.
I was a blank slate and innocent on hearing this line in the class. I totally understood what was being taught from the context and from observing life. The teaching never morphed in my mind in any of the crazy ways described here. Maybe I'm too innocent.
I had never heard the David and Bathsheba story until taking the class. When the movie came out we RC children were forbidden to see it, so I heard the two names only. I had never heard the name Uriah.
I was a blank slate and innocent on hearing this line in the class. I totally understood what was being taught from the context and from observing life. The teaching never morphed in my mind in any of the crazy ways described here. Maybe I'm too innocent.
So now your denying the context of the statement "All women in the kingdom belong to the king."
I notice while you denied the context I made, you failed to present the context you think it was in.
Once again, we're back to your circular logic, The statement says what I think it means because I said it means what I think it means.
Innocent people don't play head games. Innocent people don't dance people around.
As I've said before, the more someone dances you around, the more likely they're trying to pull something over on you.
All women in the kingdom belong to the king has nothing to do with peoples choices in pairing off. It has to do with Saint Vic rationalizing why he could do anything he wanted to ministry women.
The statement "All the women in the kingdom belong to the king" was not presented in the context of someone wanting to pair off with David. It was presented in the context of David being able to exercise a rationalized right (rationalized right because there's no Mosaic law to back him up) on Bethsheba (after he saw her finishing her bath). So, Bathsheba's choice on who to pair off with never even entered the discussion.
New ideology (veepee's private interpretation) to justify his bad behavior (sexual abuse of young adult women) and the subculture he perpetrated (lockbox, do what you want but don't tell anyone who will expose you).
46 minutes ago, Mike said:
I had never heard the David and Bathsheba story until taking the class. When the movie came out we RC children were forbidden to see it, so I heard the two names only. I had never heard the name Uriah.
I was a blank slate and innocent on hearing this line in the class. I totally understood what was being taught from the context and from observing life. The teaching never morphed in my mind in any of the crazy ways described here. Maybe I'm too innocent.
Did you really understand what he was teaching? He was laying the groundwork for self-justifying sin.
Btw, I posted a link in the me too thread to a blog post written by an abuse survivor. I returned today to the blog, Deconstructing Fundamentalism. I found another intriguing post dated today, titled, "Did God Die?" You might find that blog post interesting.
The post reminded me of you... not because the post calls out bullies, but because you seem to be more interested in justifying yourself as a particular flavor of fundamentalist (i.e. PFLAP is theopneustos) even though you've backed off of that line of posting. In this thread, in your dialogue with Twinky, you seemed more interested in getting her to approve you than to simply clarify yourself and respond (with meekness) to her questions. Here's an excerpt...
Here’s the thing, y’all. They don’t make the rules. They may think they do. But they’re mistaken. And their very insistence that they do exposes their faith as a fraud. Even according to their own dogma, God is powerful. God is alive. And the Holy One lives inside us.
Their assistance in sculpting other autonomous human beings’ worldview and theology is not needed.
So now your denying the context of the statement "All women in the kingdom belong to the king."
The context and the implication of that line told me the answer to "How could that happen?"
It's part of the story in that WHO'S going to stop him if he's king?
The line didn't tell me it was morally right, in any way, that David should have his way. It told me it was one of THOSE situations where the guy with the great power gets his way, right or wrong, and often wrong. I was very familiar with that common story at age 23.
... In this thread, in your dialogue with Twinky, you seemed more interested in getting her to approve you than to simply clarify yourself and respond (with meekness) to her questions. ...
Yes, I was trying to show her that her impressions and disapproval were incorrect. She had completely misread me, and couldn't see that I was on her side on this issue. Instead of erring a tiny on the side of forgiving my all too abbreviated grammar, she erred a HUGE amount on the side of reading as much evil into what I was saying as lawlerly possible.
Listen with meekness !!! Listen with meekness to not-so-veiled accusations of all sorts? No thanks. That's not what meekness is about. Her questions and demands were set-ups for punch lines and I know exactly how to dodge such accusations. It's called BE INNOCENT. I live my life honestly and answer to no baloney like that.
Hi folks greeting Twinkster et al. Of things related to King David, Mrs Bathshebah and her sadly deceased husband Uriah -
There's a few things askew in the PFAL representation of the story as well as how others have related it's implications later....
1. The record itself says nothing to make us think there was some form of kingly rights to unmarried or virgin women, and of course nothing like that covering married women. Doesn't mean it wasn't so, it does sound like the kind of thing a male ruler might come up with but I don't really see it in the Bible and history around a "David" is kind of scant, so....
2. This is easily seen in the way David is written to have handled his hots for Mrs B - it was all clandestine, and handled behind her husband's back and in such a way that he ultimately was killed. So of course, there's no open law that David's invoking otherwise he wouldn't have had to hide it.
3. Nothing in the Torah says anything about special dispensation for any "king" in this area. There is that law about not coveting your neighbor's wife or any of his stuff though, so there's that.
4. When VP teaches this he did IMO speak as if it was some kind of understood law of the land at that time, but I'd agree that he could have just as easily been pontificating about the general idea that sure, David was king and could basically abuse his authority in any way he wanted since he was the ruler. As a teacher myself of that record over the years I have never taught it that way myself. If you're a proponent of reading what's written, there's no need to cover that because it's not written into the record. Rather, it's written into the record that this was a "crime of passion", and David fell victim to his own lusts.
5. Nathan reacts that way to David's authority later when instructed to go reprove David - if David get's pissed at him it could be lights out. Which is a very interesting aspect to Nathan's "conversation" with God to say the least.
6. I never once thought of anything in the record or in the way VP taught it in PFAL to be an indication that what he was describing as David's behavior was somehow an indicator of how a leader of any kind today could act. It doesn't make sense and wouldn't have made sense at the time - the entire record indicates that at that point the character David was F'ING UP ROYALLY and about to bring death on Uriah and his own family as well as the nation he governed.
Or as the Bible says - "But the thing David had done displeased the Lord". Why or how could anyone think that's a good thing?
In the time I heard, saw, knew and worked with and around VP from 1969 through his death I never heard him teach this subject matter as a means of saying that he himself somehow might have - what? - access to all the unmarried women of the Way because David did, or something akin to that. I never heard that connection made by him.
I've never really understood how this connection's been made - maybe others did hear him talk about it or they heard the teaching and figured it somehow sounded like a good idea or something. I don't know.
Yes, I was trying to show her that her impressions and disapproval were incorrect. She had completely misread me, and couldn't see that I was on her side on this issue. Instead of erring a tiny on the side of forgiving my all too abbreviated grammar, she erred a HUGE amount on the side of reading as much evil into what I was saying as lawlerly possible.
So your blaming Twinky for your failure to communicate. It's not our job to figure out when your using abbreviated grammar. Nor is it our job to guess what you mean. It's YOUR job to communicate so someone can understand you. The responsibility of the communication lies with YOU, not Twinky.
Quote
Listen with meekness !!! Listen with meekness to not-so-veiled accusations of all sorts? No thanks. That's not what meekness is about. Her questions and demands were set-ups for punch lines and I know exactly how to dodge such accusations. It's called BE INNOCENT.
Me thinks thou protest too much. Scary people don't have to tell you how scary they are. Nor do smart people have to tell you how smart they are. Nor do innocent people have to tell you how innocent they are.
People who have to tell me how innocent or honest they are I find suspicious. Honesty or innocence, like intellegence, is made obvious by your actions.
Quote
I live my life honestly and answer to no baloney like that.
An honest person would have answered Twinky honestly, not play games, not dodge, not pettifog.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
The context and the implication of that line told me the answer to "How could that happen?"
It's part of the story in that WHO'S going to stop him if he's king?
The line didn't tell me it was morally right, in any way, that David should have his way. It told me it was one of THOSE situations where the guy with the great power gets his way, right or wrong, and often wrong. I was very familiar with that common story at age 23.
You just proved wht I was claiming: in your parlance, Saint Vic was saying, "I'm the authority (king) who's going to stop me?"
Yes, I was trying to show her that her impressions and disapproval were incorrect. She had completely misread me, and couldn't see that I was on her side on this issue. Instead of erring a tiny on the side of forgiving my all too abbreviated grammar, she erred a HUGE amount on the side of reading as much evil into what I was saying as lawlerly possible.
Listen with meekness !!! Listen with meekness to not-so-veiled accusations of all sorts? No thanks. That's not what meekness is about. Her questions and demands were set-ups for punch lines and I know exactly how to dodge such accusations. It's called BE INNOCENT. I live my life honestly and answer to no baloney like that.
What makes you think her withholding of approval was something you had a right to demand she change? That's (on your part) a demonstration of a deficiency in EQ.
You have the right to ask her why she holds that position, so that you can either clarify why you believe she misunderstood OR to try to change her mind by way of argument (not the same as bickering).
But you very much have no right to demand she change it. That's a matter of personal and emotional boundaries.
Listening with meekness IS the issue here. In the context of this interaction (yours with Twinky) it means that if you need clarification of her intentions, you ask for it without you projecting your judgment on her. And project your judgment seems to be what you described having done.
It was interesting to see what vpw said about David, Nathan and Bathsheba. vpw said that what David did to URIAH was wrong. He said that David's actions concerning adultery, forced sex with Bathsheba (he "TOOK HER" as the Bible says) (she had no literal ability to refuse him so any "consent" would be considered INVALID in any fair court-yet there was no mention of her consenting in any verse), and the murder or Uriah to cover his tracks was "OFF THE BALL." In the Bible, the same was "DOING EVIL." What vpw said David did to Bathsheba was "FOOLING AROUND". The Bible said David "TOOK HER". vpw said he "FOOLED AROUND"- and he used the Nathan-David-Bathsheba incident as a specific example of "RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD."
vpw (Orange Book chapter 6:
"There are many examples of correction in the
Bible. Take David, for instance. David was off the
ball. He found beautiful Bathsheba and then had her
husband shot while in the front lines of battle so that
he, David, could have Bathsheba as his wife. A few
people knew about the sequence of events leading to
David’s marriage, but nobody had a right to say any-
thing because
David was king and every woman in the
kingdom was technically the property of the king or
belonged to the king."
============================== Mike may creatively reinterpret what vpw meant, but vpw was rather clear that "TECHNICALLY" didn't mean this was "de facto" and not "de jure" (illegal but he was able to do so because nobody had the power to stop him from breaking the law), but that this was a LEGAL RIGHT of David's - "NOBODY HAD A RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING". If David broke the law, then people had a LEGAL RIGHT to say so (to say nothing of the obligation to uphold the law.) vpw considered the CITIZENS of Israel to be the SLAVES, the CHATTEL of the King- "every woman in the kingdom was technically the property of the king or belonged to the klng." In case "belonged to the king" was unclear, he doubled down and said they were "PROPERTY".
Now, someone can come along later and say that the clear words here- "belonged to" "property" "nobody had a right" - mean something completely different than what they say. Doesn't mean they're correct or that reality changes to match their wishes that the book had said something else.
It was interesting to see what vpw said about David, Nathan and Bathsheba. vpw said that what David did to URIAH was wrong. He said that David's actions concerning adultery, forced sex with Bathsheba (he "TOOK HER" as the Bible says) (she had no literal ability to refuse him so any "consent" would be considered INVALID in any fair court-yet there was no mention of her consenting in any verse), and the murder or Uriah to cover his tracks was "OFF THE BALL." In the Bible, the same was "DOING EVIL." What vpw said David did to Bathsheba was "FOOLING AROUND". The Bible said David "TOOK HER". vpw said he "FOOLED AROUND"- and he used the Nathan-David-Bathsheba incident as a specific example of "RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD."
vpw (Orange Book chapter 6:
"There are many examples of correction in the
Bible. Take David, for instance. David was off the
ball. He found beautiful Bathsheba and then had her
husband shot while in the front lines of battle so that
he, David, could have Bathsheba as his wife. A few
people knew about the sequence of events leading to
David’s marriage, but nobody had a right to say any-
thing because
David was king and every woman in the
kingdom was technically the property of the king or
belonged to the king."
============================== Mike may creatively reinterpret what vpw meant, but vpw was rather clear that "TECHNICALLY" didn't mean this was "de facto" and not "de jure" (illegal but he was able to do so because nobody had the power to stop him from breaking the law), but that this was a LEGAL RIGHT of David's - "NOBODY HAD A RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING". If David broke the law, then people had a LEGAL RIGHT to say so (to say nothing of the obligation to uphold the law.) vpw considered the CITIZENS of Israel to be the SLAVES, the CHATTEL of the King- "every woman in the kingdom was technically the property of the king or belonged to the klng." In case "belonged to the king" was unclear, he doubled down and said they were "PROPERTY".
Now, someone can come along later and say that the clear words here- "belonged to" "property" "nobody had a right" - mean something completely different than what they say. Doesn't mean they're correct or that reality changes to match their wishes that the book had said something else.
Another thing that doesn’t jibe with wierwille’s flimsy excuse for David’s behavior (saying technically all the women of the kingdom belonged to the king) is that Nathan confronted David on two issues - having Uriah killed as well as taking Uriah’s wife to be his own:
The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, 3 but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.
4 “Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”
5 David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! 6 He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”
7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’…II Samuel 12: 1-10 NIV
Mike may creatively reinterpret what vpw meant, but vpw was rather clear that "TECHNICALLY" didn't mean this was "de facto" and not "de jure" (illegal but he was able to do so because nobody had the power to stop him from breaking the law), but that this was a LEGAL RIGHT of David's - "NOBODY HAD A RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING". If David broke the law, then people had a LEGAL RIGHT to say so (to say nothing of the obligation to uphold the law.)
I always saw that "right" as being a practical right, and never a legal right. I've often seen the practical rule over the legal, and in modern times. Some sports caster may have a legal right to speak his opinion, but as soon as he steps on the toes of racism or homosexuality he's severely sanctioned. This serves as a precedent for other sports casters to fear losing their jobs and their PRACTICAL rights are curtailed. It has nothing to do with legal and moral; it's what's actually practiced regularly.
I see the entire David incident as told in PFAL as instructive on how the human things back in Biblical cultures was much the same human things today.
I always saw that "right" as being a practical right, and never a legal right. I've often seen the practical rule over the legal, and in modern times. Some sports caster may have a legal right to speak his opinion, but as soon as he steps on the toes of racism or homosexuality he's severely sanctioned. This serves as a precedent for other sports casters to fear losing their jobs and their PRACTICAL rights are curtailed. It has nothing to do with legal and moral; it's what's actually practiced regularly.
I see the entire David incident as told in PFAL as instructive on how the human things back in Biblical cultures was much the same human things today.
Congratulations, Mike. You have managed, once again, to redefine another word that had no ambiguity to start with.
"I see the entire David incident as told in PFAL as instructive on how the human things back in Biblical cultures was much the same human things today."
And I see it as VPW preemptively rationalizing his own misdeeds in case he ever gets called out on them.
I always saw that "right" as being a practical right, and never a legal right. I've often seen the practical rule over the legal, and in modern times. Some sports caster may have a legal right to speak his opinion, but as soon as he steps on the toes of racism or homosexuality he's severely sanctioned. This serves as a precedent for other sports casters to fear losing their jobs and their PRACTICAL rights are curtailed. It has nothing to do with legal and moral; it's what's actually practiced regularly.
I see the entire David incident as told in PFAL as instructive on how the human things back in Biblical cultures was much the same human things today.
Thank you, sensei, you've touched me deeply.
I can now see how a person who has an affair and changes his ways compares with someone who repeatedly gives "roofies" and insists on continuing in his sin.
None of these supposed preemptive "set ups" worked on me. Maybe I am too innocent. There's no way the wording of the David incident dulled any of my conscience. I could see that "fooling around" was dangerous, not a legal or moral right. I could then and still can see actual modern kingdoms ALL AROUND me where the kings have all the girls. This does not dull me either.
I'm impressed how in imaginative people can be to see evil where it is not.
None of these supposed preemptive "set ups" worked on me. Maybe I am too innocent.
Yah, and the Nazis were too innocent to see what they were doing to the Jews, too. /sarc
The Roman soldiers were too innocent to see what they were doing to Christ./sarc
Closing your eyes and refusing to see evil is not innocence, it's good men doing nothing, the thing evil thrives upon.
Quote
There's no way the wording of the David incident dulled any of my conscience.
Which means it did in some way, he just refuses to admit it. Nothing is all, never, or no way.
Quote
I could see that "fooling around" was dangerous, not a legal or moral right. I could then and still can see actual modern kingdoms ALL AROUND me where the kings have all the girls. This does not dull me either.
Do those kings force themselves on the girls? Do those kings go through great measures to hide the fact they forced themselves on the girls?
Quote
I'm impressed how in imaginative people can be to see evil where it is not.
I'm impressed by the mental gymnastics someone will go through to prevent seeing evil where it is.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
25
118
33
51
Popular Days
Feb 9
41
Feb 10
39
Feb 14
37
Feb 21
30
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 25 posts
Mike 118 posts
Twinky 33 posts
So_crates 51 posts
Popular Days
Feb 9 2018
41 posts
Feb 10 2018
39 posts
Feb 14 2018
37 posts
Feb 21 2018
30 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
I do not see that this says, Love a book (not even a bible) - not love PFAL. I do see that it requires some practical application, otherwise, how else will you love your neighbour? By reading th
Twinky
Mike, please re-read the first two posts when I opened this thread. You indicated that you had been re-reading heart-rending stories on old threads and your understanding was growing. So this thread
Twinky
Well, this thread has wandered off point somewhat. This was the point: I'm seeing lots of defensiveness from Mike, but nothing about empathy or understanding about the hurt caused by TWI.
Posted Images
So_crates
Why would she bother? Your hoisted by your own petard as frequent as Taylor Swift falls in love.
No, your into trying to sell PLAF as theopneustos.
So tell me, since its in PLAF books, is the line "All the women in the kingdom belong to the king" theopneustos?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's amazing what gets conflated, so I'll point it out.
A) "The Football Captain always gets his choice of the cheerleaders." The women go for the guy who has one or more of the following: looks, money, popularity, From them, he can select among those he finds most favorable from: looks, popularity. (The system points to that and not to other selectors. Which selectors are GOOD selectors are a whole discussion.) So, the teenage women make freewill choices who to make themselves approachable towards (or approach them), and the teenage men make freewill choices who to approach (or be available to approach.) The "problem" here is that the "top" of both indices pair off (the first string athletes with the first-string cheerleaders.) That's actually sensible. But those who are left out can be troubled by it. It's reality- wealth and other factors are inherited and not distributed by merit. But the adolescents all made their own decisions. They could easily choose someone not on the other index based on their own reasons or even a whim. All legal, all acceptable, all of it not immoral.
B) King David ruling Israel under the Mosaic Law- which stressed fidelity in marriage and had NO clause permitting otherwise, even for a King. He chose to break his own law and exert his unequal power over a married woman and had an affair with her. We know nothing about her state of mind, but we know he had the power to break the law at will and have her forced to "cooperate." He even had the power to have her husband killed and make it look like an accident- and he did. She was not free to make a choice there no matter what she actually thought or felt. King David operated outside The Law, and acted immorally.
And yet, someone claimed that "TECHNICALLY" this was all right. It was not-it was illegal. The only explanation as to why someone thought it would be legal was someone claiming that "TECHNICALLY" "all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king." However, that was a notion contrary to Scripture- thus the absence of verses supporting that bald claim.
The idea that powerful people in Hollywood can rape and molest and get away with it goes along with that sort of justification- yet it's illegal in the US just as it's illegal under the Mosaic Law. That has nothing to do with teenagers choosing who to date.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's good to bring this up again periodically. People who are real pfal fans always seem ready to excuse vpw of any of his immoral and illegal acts in the process. Sometimes they say they don't make a big deal about the man, other times they're more honest about it. And it's never people who spent a lot of personal time with him who say that. They either never met him, or were introduced in passing...so it's easy to invent a vpw who isn't based on reality who is worthy of respect, and thus, respected.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So then your saying Saint Vic was a moron.
As Wordwolf pointed out, there's no such Mosaic law, so where did it come from?
It was Saint Vic offering a rationalization for his behavior.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
My take on the word "technically" is different. When guys talk in a barber shop and some uses the word :technically" it's often used in a demeaning sense. Example: A technicality of the law, as spoken by barber shop patrons (not lawyers) is often not in line with common sense or with moral law.
When I first heard this David line in PFAL it was obvious that David was WRONG morally, and that is stated as well. That he would get any woman in the kingdom is just THE WAY IT IS in human organizations. This having his way isn't moral, isn't the way good folks do things, but it IS UNFORTUNATELY the way it often gets done in the dog eat dog real world.
I had come to all these conclusion myself prior to hearing the class.
I knew the Captain of the Football team didn't just select his favorite girl to take her to the malt shop. Some of them used their looks and bravado to get the date, and then often used alcohol. In college most guys used that plus pot and other drugs to weaken girls. If date rape drugs had been in vented when I was in college half my friends would have tried them. I was appalled by it. I grew up with three baby sisters, and I was their protector. That's how I was raised. I was taught before puberty to protect them; after puberty I knew why.
WW you may have had better friends in High School, but I knew a lot of ruthless ones. All the Harvey Wienstein tactics we heard about recently I've known to be used by Jr High and High School and college boys.
The PFAL line just reflects the misfortunes of human life. What significance I took from it is that Biblical people of long agoi go through pretty much the same junk we have to go through. It broke down some of the distance I felt between me and Biblical times and people. To think that that line could be used to twist an innocent mind into sexual perversity is perverse in itself, and in a worse way.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
As I said, I fear it is stamped into our genetics, both sexes. It's not civil, but it procreates in times severe austerity: famine, war, petulance, weather. That's why so many men want to be king.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
All women in the kingdom belong to the king has nothing to do with peoples choices in pairing off. It has to do with Saint Vic rationalizing why he could do anything he wanted to ministry women.
The statement "All the women in the kingdom belong to the king" was not presented in the context of someone wanting to pair off with David. It was presented in the context of David being able to exercise a rationalized right (rationalized right because there's no Mosaic law to back him up) on Bethsheba (after he saw her finishing her bath). So, Bathsheba's choice on who to pair off with never even entered the discussion. So, as always, your attempting to interject something that isn't there.
It's amazing how many wong conclusions you can come to.
No, it reflects Saint Vic's rationalization and mindset. As , once again, where did it come from? The context doesn't suggest your claim.
Well, so far we have Saint Vic as perverse and a moron.
Because he twisted it in the worst way.
Read LOSING THE WAY and you'll see how Saint Vic twisted that statement into a pretzel.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I had never heard the David and Bathsheba story until taking the class. When the movie came out we RC children were forbidden to see it, so I heard the two names only. I had never heard the name Uriah.
I was a blank slate and innocent on hearing this line in the class. I totally understood what was being taught from the context and from observing life. The teaching never morphed in my mind in any of the crazy ways described here. Maybe I'm too innocent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So now your denying the context of the statement "All women in the kingdom belong to the king."
I notice while you denied the context I made, you failed to present the context you think it was in.
Once again, we're back to your circular logic, The statement says what I think it means because I said it means what I think it means.
Innocent people don't play head games. Innocent people don't dance people around.
As I've said before, the more someone dances you around, the more likely they're trying to pull something over on you.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
New ideology (veepee's private interpretation) to justify his bad behavior (sexual abuse of young adult women) and the subculture he perpetrated (lockbox, do what you want but don't tell anyone who will expose you).
Did you really understand what he was teaching? He was laying the groundwork for self-justifying sin.
Btw, I posted a link in the me too thread to a blog post written by an abuse survivor. I returned today to the blog, Deconstructing Fundamentalism. I found another intriguing post dated today, titled, "Did God Die?" You might find that blog post interesting.
The post reminded me of you... not because the post calls out bullies, but because you seem to be more interested in justifying yourself as a particular flavor of fundamentalist (i.e. PFLAP is theopneustos) even though you've backed off of that line of posting. In this thread, in your dialogue with Twinky, you seemed more interested in getting her to approve you than to simply clarify yourself and respond (with meekness) to her questions. Here's an excerpt...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The context and the implication of that line told me the answer to "How could that happen?"
It's part of the story in that WHO'S going to stop him if he's king?
The line didn't tell me it was morally right, in any way, that David should have his way. It told me it was one of THOSE situations where the guy with the great power gets his way, right or wrong, and often wrong. I was very familiar with that common story at age 23.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes, I was trying to show her that her impressions and disapproval were incorrect. She had completely misread me, and couldn't see that I was on her side on this issue. Instead of erring a tiny on the side of forgiving my all too abbreviated grammar, she erred a HUGE amount on the side of reading as much evil into what I was saying as lawlerly possible.
Listen with meekness !!! Listen with meekness to not-so-veiled accusations of all sorts? No thanks. That's not what meekness is about. Her questions and demands were set-ups for punch lines and I know exactly how to dodge such accusations. It's called BE INNOCENT. I live my life honestly and answer to no baloney like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hi folks greeting Twinkster et al. Of things related to King David, Mrs Bathshebah and her sadly deceased husband Uriah -
There's a few things askew in the PFAL representation of the story as well as how others have related it's implications later....
1. The record itself says nothing to make us think there was some form of kingly rights to unmarried or virgin women, and of course nothing like that covering married women. Doesn't mean it wasn't so, it does sound like the kind of thing a male ruler might come up with but I don't really see it in the Bible and history around a "David" is kind of scant, so....
2. This is easily seen in the way David is written to have handled his hots for Mrs B - it was all clandestine, and handled behind her husband's back and in such a way that he ultimately was killed. So of course, there's no open law that David's invoking otherwise he wouldn't have had to hide it.
3. Nothing in the Torah says anything about special dispensation for any "king" in this area. There is that law about not coveting your neighbor's wife or any of his stuff though, so there's that.
4. When VP teaches this he did IMO speak as if it was some kind of understood law of the land at that time, but I'd agree that he could have just as easily been pontificating about the general idea that sure, David was king and could basically abuse his authority in any way he wanted since he was the ruler. As a teacher myself of that record over the years I have never taught it that way myself. If you're a proponent of reading what's written, there's no need to cover that because it's not written into the record. Rather, it's written into the record that this was a "crime of passion", and David fell victim to his own lusts.
5. Nathan reacts that way to David's authority later when instructed to go reprove David - if David get's pissed at him it could be lights out. Which is a very interesting aspect to Nathan's "conversation" with God to say the least.
6. I never once thought of anything in the record or in the way VP taught it in PFAL to be an indication that what he was describing as David's behavior was somehow an indicator of how a leader of any kind today could act. It doesn't make sense and wouldn't have made sense at the time - the entire record indicates that at that point the character David was F'ING UP ROYALLY and about to bring death on Uriah and his own family as well as the nation he governed.
Or as the Bible says - "But the thing David had done displeased the Lord". Why or how could anyone think that's a good thing?
In the time I heard, saw, knew and worked with and around VP from 1969 through his death I never heard him teach this subject matter as a means of saying that he himself somehow might have - what? - access to all the unmarried women of the Way because David did, or something akin to that. I never heard that connection made by him.
I've never really understood how this connection's been made - maybe others did hear him talk about it or they heard the teaching and figured it somehow sounded like a good idea or something. I don't know.
Have fun peeps!!! Stay frosty!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So your blaming Twinky for your failure to communicate. It's not our job to figure out when your using abbreviated grammar. Nor is it our job to guess what you mean. It's YOUR job to communicate so someone can understand you. The responsibility of the communication lies with YOU, not Twinky.
Me thinks thou protest too much. Scary people don't have to tell you how scary they are. Nor do smart people have to tell you how smart they are. Nor do innocent people have to tell you how innocent they are.
People who have to tell me how innocent or honest they are I find suspicious. Honesty or innocence, like intellegence, is made obvious by your actions.
An honest person would have answered Twinky honestly, not play games, not dodge, not pettifog.
You just proved wht I was claiming: in your parlance, Saint Vic was saying, "I'm the authority (king) who's going to stop me?"
Want proof? Look at his actions.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
What makes you think her withholding of approval was something you had a right to demand she change? That's (on your part) a demonstration of a deficiency in EQ.
You have the right to ask her why she holds that position, so that you can either clarify why you believe she misunderstood OR to try to change her mind by way of argument (not the same as bickering).
But you very much have no right to demand she change it. That's a matter of personal and emotional boundaries.
Listening with meekness IS the issue here. In the context of this interaction (yours with Twinky) it means that if you need clarification of her intentions, you ask for it without you projecting your judgment on her. And project your judgment seems to be what you described having done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It was interesting to see what vpw said about David, Nathan and Bathsheba. vpw said that what David did to URIAH was wrong. He said that David's actions concerning adultery, forced sex with Bathsheba (he "TOOK HER" as the Bible says) (she had no literal ability to refuse him so any "consent" would be considered INVALID in any fair court-yet there was no mention of her consenting in any verse), and the murder or Uriah to cover his tracks was "OFF THE BALL." In the Bible, the same was "DOING EVIL." What vpw said David did to Bathsheba was "FOOLING AROUND". The Bible said David "TOOK HER". vpw said he "FOOLED AROUND"- and he used the Nathan-David-Bathsheba incident as a specific example of "RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD."
vpw (Orange Book chapter 6:
"There are many examples of correction in the
Bible. Take David, for instance. David was off the
ball. He found beautiful Bathsheba and then had her
husband shot while in the front lines of battle so that
he, David, could have Bathsheba as his wife. A few
people knew about the sequence of events leading to
David’s marriage, but nobody had a right to say any-
thing because
David was king and every woman in the
kingdom was technically the property of the king or
belonged to the king."
==============================
Mike may creatively reinterpret what vpw meant, but vpw was rather clear that "TECHNICALLY" didn't mean this was "de facto" and not "de jure" (illegal but he was able to do so because nobody had the power to stop him from breaking the law), but that this was a LEGAL RIGHT of David's - "NOBODY HAD A RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING". If David broke the law, then people had a LEGAL RIGHT to say so (to say nothing of the obligation to uphold the law.) vpw considered the CITIZENS of Israel to be the SLAVES, the CHATTEL of the King- "every woman in the kingdom was technically the property of the king or belonged to the klng." In case "belonged to the king" was unclear, he doubled down and said they were "PROPERTY".
Now, someone can come along later and say that the clear words here- "belonged to" "property" "nobody had a right" - mean something completely different than what they say. Doesn't mean they're correct or that reality changes to match their wishes that the book had said something else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Another thing that doesn’t jibe with wierwille’s flimsy excuse for David’s behavior (saying technically all the women of the kingdom belonged to the king) is that Nathan confronted David on two issues - having Uriah killed as well as taking Uriah’s wife to be his own:
The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, 3 but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.
4 “Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”
5 David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! 6 He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”
7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’…II Samuel 12: 1-10 NIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I always saw that "right" as being a practical right, and never a legal right. I've often seen the practical rule over the legal, and in modern times. Some sports caster may have a legal right to speak his opinion, but as soon as he steps on the toes of racism or homosexuality he's severely sanctioned. This serves as a precedent for other sports casters to fear losing their jobs and their PRACTICAL rights are curtailed. It has nothing to do with legal and moral; it's what's actually practiced regularly.
I see the entire David incident as told in PFAL as instructive on how the human things back in Biblical cultures was much the same human things today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Congratulations, Mike. You have managed, once again, to redefine another word that had no ambiguity to start with.
"I see the entire David incident as told in PFAL as instructive on how the human things back in Biblical cultures was much the same human things today."
And I see it as VPW preemptively rationalizing his own misdeeds in case he ever gets called out on them.
It's all in the perspective, I suppose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Thank you, sensei, you've touched me deeply.
I can now see how a person who has an affair and changes his ways compares with someone who repeatedly gives "roofies" and insists on continuing in his sin.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
None of these supposed preemptive "set ups" worked on me. Maybe I am too innocent. There's no way the wording of the David incident dulled any of my conscience. I could see that "fooling around" was dangerous, not a legal or moral right. I could then and still can see actual modern kingdoms ALL AROUND me where the kings have all the girls. This does not dull me either.
I'm impressed how in imaginative people can be to see evil where it is not.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Yah, and the Nazis were too innocent to see what they were doing to the Jews, too. /sarc
The Roman soldiers were too innocent to see what they were doing to Christ./sarc
Closing your eyes and refusing to see evil is not innocence, it's good men doing nothing, the thing evil thrives upon.
Which means it did in some way, he just refuses to admit it. Nothing is all, never, or no way.
Do those kings force themselves on the girls? Do those kings go through great measures to hide the fact they forced themselves on the girls?
I'm impressed by the mental gymnastics someone will go through to prevent seeing evil where it is.
Edited by So_cratesLink 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.