" As we relaxed and had a second drink, he asked Judy and me to describe what is was like
to attend an orgy. We were taken back by the question and embarrassed by it, because even though it was part of our testimony in our deliverance from sin to God's righteousness, no one had ever asked us to describe what it was like to go to an orgy.
We found his curiosity shocking. But we gave him a brief description which is really all we could give him since our encounter with an orgy had been so brief. We had attended one orgy sponsored by the San Francisco Sexual Freedom League, but we were so overwhelmed by the spectacle that we had left after twenty minutes.
"You know that's all available," V.P. said. "God put it in I Corinthians 7:1 which He said 'It is good for a man not to touch a woman.' If it wasn't available to have sex outside the marriage God would have said 'best' instead of 'good.'"
I could not believe what I was hearing. I responded with, "I just thank God that He pulled our soul out of that pit of debauchery." When Judy and I went to bed, I said to her, "I don't believe what he said tonight, and I'm going to forget it. I must have misunderstood him."
vpw told Jim God said orgies were "available."
==============
""Weirwille sought things to validate his position. He did NOT research the word and change his opinion to IT. I becamed pretty good friends with Jim D*0p. He told me that he, Jim, had a ministry where they were sexually loose and an anything goes kinda group out in California. Weirwille flew out there, telling folks it was to talk with Jim about the Bible and witness or something to him. Jim told me Weirwille flew out there to LEARN from Jimmy about the free sex thinking. Weirwille said he always believed sex should be free and allowed with as many as you feel you want to be with -- but could NEVER prove it from the Bible. He was there to see if Jimmy could prove it was okay via scripture.
D0*p never really could and was more of a hippie minister than a sexual pervert looking for Biblical validation.
Weirwille had these concepts, notions, urges, illnesses and tried to find a way to SELL them to us. He was not about to CHANGE his thinking according to scripture. He was not a researcher. He was similar to a lot of cult leaders. He had an idea and looked for people who would buy into it. Like Charlie Manson."
=================
""He also told a small group at Emporia one night to teach their children about their bodies, "you can brush their nipple with your hand and show them how it hardens. You can show them not to be ashamed of their body reactions" Then he shared about the African Tribe where the Father broke the hymen of the daughters to get them experienced in sex to prepare them for marriage -- he thought it to be beautiful.
VPW had already let me see his dark side. Sitting there I thought OH MY GOD, this is subtle but
he is teaching this group that it is beautiful to teach your daughters how to have sex, it is just not accepted in our culture!
He was standing behind his sex problems and setting us up to have sex with our godly "family" as well as the earthly one."
i think we ought to call it variations on a theme; vp had numerous ways of asserting this same malleable code of ethics:
love God & neighbor and do as you fool well please
what i may allow in my life you may not allow in yours and visa versa [used often in many of his live teachings]
~~
and several i remember from the pajama party mentioned in my post # 460 - after showing us the bestiality video he addressed the possibility that some of us may have been kinda weirded out by it - saying such things as
unto the pure all things are pure
when you become spiritually mature you can handle anything
i've so renewed my mind that things like this don't bother me
he said he showed us the video out of his concern for us as potential leaders who can't afford to be shocked by anything if we want to help people - he tied that into anything done in the love of God is okay - like him preparing us for extremely unusual counseling situations - it takes the love of God to do that
~~
folks here can probably mention more variations on a theme.....but it was the same old theme wasn't it - i can do as i fool well please !
As for vpw's explanation of "love God, love your neighbor, then you can do as you fool well please" was both UNINFORMATIVE and INCORRECT. The entire purpose of that was to INSERT vpw's "private interpretation" (as he would call it) into a verse that did not contain "do as you fool well please." The goal was to get people used to the idea that God Almighty was fine with them "doing as they fool well pleased". However, that contradicted the actual verses.
It's so obvious. IF you actually A) love God Almighty with everything you've got and B) love your neighbor like you love yourself,
then it is IMPOSSIBLE to "do as you fool well please."
Your actions will reflect pleasing God and being a good neighbor and making God and neighbor happy. And before anyone claims that just applied to someone living next door, Jesus himself clarified "who is my neighbor" with the parable of The Good Samaritan. THAT was the example Jesus gave.
Luke 10: 29-37 KJV
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
Which was the example Jesus gave? He found the stranger, and had him healed and taken care of at his own expense. "Go and do thou likewise." As for the priest and the Levite, who SUPPOSEDLY served God and avoided the stranger who needed help? They did as they fool well pleased. According to vpw, that was FINE- becuase he was setting the stage for himself to have free reign to do whatever he wanted to, and encourage likewise. vpw had FAR more in common with the religious hypocrites of Jesus' day than with the disciples he CLAIMED to resemble (and insinuate he outperformed.)
"Jesus summarized the entire Jewish law with love - love for God and love for others . He did NOT simplify the law. There is a difference!
Jesus spoke of the first and great commandment and the second is like unto it - to love God and to love neighbor - He said the entire law and the prophets hang on that. That is a summary- He indicated all prohibitions to sin - i.e., to NOT commit adultery, to NOT lie, to NOT steal, etc., He recapitulated all the main points of the law showing how they all relate to loving God and neighbor.
In PFAL wierwille taught it WRONG! He simplified it - he said Jesus reduced all the law down to just 2 commandments. To reduce or simplify is to eliminate or lessen components. Knowing about wierwille’s moral depravity, it makes perfect sense he would like to blur boundaries and obfuscate what is right and wrong. There’s no specifics…it’s left up to the individual to determine what is right and wrong….That’s how he could commit unconscionable acts and rationalize sin out of it by saying “anything done in the love of God is okay”
Jesus didn’t teach THAT! He summarized! It’s like He drew a big umbrella over all the specific prohibitions and said the love for God and others are the prime directives - that love covers every scenario! If you love God and others you should not commit adultery, you should not lie, steal, etc. Love was the basis for the law!
The summary does not eliminate any components - it merely gives the big picture of how we conduct our lives should always reflect loving God and others."
In short, if you love God with everything you've got, and love your neighbor like you love yourself, nobody has to tell you not to steal, not to kill, etc,- BECAUSE YOU'LL AVOID DOING THEM WITHOUT SPECIFIC RULES.
vpw's own rule was different: "If you love God, and you love your neighbor, you can do as you fool well please." He started with loving God and neighbor, but changed that you would follow the rules automatically (which is interesting because he mentioned that quickly in passing.) Why the difference? vpw went in small steps from what the verses said, to what he WANTED the verses to say. He went from "If you love God and love your neighbor, you'll follow the whole law automatically" to "so long as you love God and love your neighbor, you can do as you fool well please" to "anything done with the love of God is pure" "to the pure, all things are pure" etc. In small steps, he went from "obey the law out of love" to "you can do whatever you want and it's fine". Why did he want that? He wanted to justify doing whatever he wanted and wanted to pretend God Almighty was fine with that. It's no different than when he told Jim D00p that God Almighty was fine with ORGIES and tried to use a verse to justify it.
For those who wonder where you've seen the small steps before, it's a very old technique. Someone went from "Has God said 'you shall not eat of every tree in the garden?" step by step to go from "you shall surely die" to "you shall not surely die". Whose techniques did vpw copy? BTW, did vpw do that knowing enough about the Bible to know whose work he was copying (knowing he was copying the devil's playbook to rationalize the sin he himself wanted to do) or was vpw that deficient in the meaning of Scripture that he ripped off the devil's own techniques, techniques mentioned right in pfal, out of ignorance? It was either one or the other.
(Usually, when there's a conundrum like this, where all possible answers are bad, someone makes a personal attack on me, so it's probably time for that very thing now, for those arriving late.)
Jesus explained that one with a parable about a Jew who needed help, and, of all people, one of those stinking, lousy, no-good, low-down SAMARITANS was the person who helped him. Jesus made it clear that SAMARITAN was the one who "was neighbor" to the Jew who needed help. It was such a noxious concept that the Jew who asked him couldn't bring him to say "the SAMARITAN who helped him", but said "the one who showed mercy on him." Jesus, having told the parable of the Good Samaritan, said to do like that guy. "Go and do thou likewise" is how the KJV renders it.
So, who's your neighbor?
According to Jesus, you can't exclude that Muslim, that Jew, that Black guy, that Asian guy, that Pakistani, that African dude, that redneck, that smug anti-Christian, that Pastafarian, etc.
Jesus set the standard very high, and said to do that.
Deut 27:17: "Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen."
Somewhere or other in PFAL VPW goes into this meaning, "the landmark of the mind, one's personal boundaries." Cursed be those who shift one's boundaries.
I have so often thought of this, because what happens in TWI is that the more one becomes enmeshed, the more one's boundaries and one's moral compass are shifted. A little bit here, a little nudge there, an unchallenged overstretch elsewhere... It all goes to shifting the boundaries of the mind. Until finally, there are few boundaries, and such as they are depend almost entirely on dictats of the cult leader. The insidious nature of this can be hard to spot at first.
It may well be true that some of us had inappropriate boundaries - too strict or too lax - that maybe should have been moved. Our morals might not have been very healthy. But any movement should have been to bring us closer into alignment with the scriptures - not to enable us to do whatever we wanted "in the love of God." NO NO NO a thousand times NO!
And that doesn't just mean our sexual boundaries, but boundaries relating to honesty, integrity, not stealing, not lying, not hurting each other ("tough love"). Work time. Family time. Sleep time. Recreational time. Day to day living has boundaries, and if appropriate they need to be respected. What somebody else chooses might not be your choice, but it's theirs to choose. And yours to respect.
Tis but short steps between immorality, amorality and becoming completely callous towards others. Brutal, even.
Just refresh yourselves on 2 Peter 2, which well describes "false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies" (verse 1) and slashes through the "do as you like" ideas that some false teacher even then were propounding.
Deut 27:17: "Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen."
Somewhere or other in PFAL VPW goes into this meaning, "the landmark of the mind, one's personal boundaries." Cursed be those who shift one's boundaries.
I have so often thought of this, because what happens in TWI is that the more one becomes enmeshed, the more one's boundaries and one's moral compass are shifted. A little bit here, a little nudge there, an unchallenged overstretch elsewhere... It all goes to shifting the boundaries of the mind. Until finally, there are few boundaries, and such as they are depend almost entirely on dictats of the cult leader. The insidious nature of this can be hard to spot at first.
It may well be true that some of us had inappropriate boundaries - too strict or too lax - that maybe should have been moved. Our morals might not have been very healthy. But any movement should have been to bring us closer into alignment with the scriptures - not to enable us to do whatever we wanted "in the love of God." NO NO NO a thousand times NO!
And that doesn't just mean our sexual boundaries, but boundaries relating to honesty, integrity, not stealing, not lying, not hurting each other ("tough love"). Work time. Family time. Sleep time. Recreational time. Day to day living has boundaries, and if appropriate they need to be respected. What somebody else chooses might not be your choice, but it's theirs to choose. And yours to respect.
Tis but short steps between immorality, amorality and becoming completely callous towards others. Brutal, even.
Just refresh yourselves on 2 Peter 2, which well describes "false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies" (verse 1) and slashes through the "do as you like" ideas that some false teacher even then were propounding.
I agree with your treatment of boundaries, Twinky. Boundaries are so important for our wellbeing. For some of us, setting and enforcing boundaries can be a matter of life or death.
But...
victor paul wierwille, cult founder, in 1973, when "teaching" his Corps on Romans, said, if no one sees you disrespecting another's boundaries, it won't influence the example you set for others -- UNLESS you beleeeve it will.
The lesson: are you BELEEVING to move someone's boundaries? Don't do it... dooooon't do it... don't BELEEEVE you are moving someone's boundaries and you won't be. Just be sure to only disrespect someone's boundaries in secret, and don't beleeeve it's happening. Simple. ABC. Math.
Hey! I didn't teach Romans to the Corps in 1973. Got a problem? Take it up with management.
ALSO, Deut 27:17 is absolutely NOT about a "landmark of the mind." It's about land/property boundaries. Hey! I didn't write the book, but if victor paul wierwille wants to change what the word says, it's no longer the word.
Furthermore, Deuteronomy 27 lists several laws. Deuteronomy 28 lists God's promises for obeying those laws. HOWEVER, those laws and promises are not written TO us. (Whew! That was a close call.)
In that same "teaching" to his Corps in the glory days of 1973, victor paul wierwille "taught" what a neighbor is. Victor's definition goes against what Christ taught. Victor's teaching is antiChrist.
victor paul wierwille, cult founder, in 1973, when "teaching" his Corps on Romans, said, if no one sees you disrespecting another's boundaries, it won't influence the example you set for others -- UNLESS you beleeeve it will.
He said that? Jeepers! Won't influence others?
What about the continual undermining of one's own integrity? What about building a habit of disrespecting others? You are what you think, and sooner or later what you think will spill over into your actions.
He clearly missed the gems such as 1 Sam 16:7 - for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.
What about the continual undermining of one's own integrity? What about building a habit of disrespecting others? You are what you think, and sooner or later what you think will spill over into your actions.
He clearly missed the gems such as 1 Sam 16:7 - for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.
He didn't say exactly that, but that is exactly what he meant.
If you want, I can send you the transcript. Here's the Q&A at the end of the Corps "teaching" between victor paul wierwille and Loy Craig Martindale:
LCM: How much does you behavior that people do not see influence your example to them?
VPW: It doesn't, unless you believe it will.
LCM: You understand what I asked?
VPW: I sure did and I gave you the proper answer.
LCM: I asked, How much does you behavior that people do not see influence your example to them?
He didn't say exactly that, but that is exactly what he meant.
If you want, I can send you the transcript. Here's the Q&A at the end or the Corps "teaching" between victor paul wierwille and Loy Craig Martindale:
LCM: How much does you behavior that people do not see influence your example to them?
VPW: It doesn't, unless you believe it will.
LCM: You understand what I asked?
VPW: I sure did and I gave you the proper answer.
LCM: I asked, How much does you behavior that people do not see influence your example to them?
VPW: Alright, Kurt?
KURT: In verse 15 of chapter 14....
Wow....that goes to show that LCM knew the correct answer scripturally and wierwille led him astray right on the spot, thus LCM's retort "You understand what I asked?" Ive always though wierwille corrupted LCM and this is a little piece of that puzzle...thanks NateJr.
Follow this link and hit ctl and F at the same time so it searches the webpage. Search the word secret
I would say that the words of wierwille do not agree with the Words of Christ.
No, they do not. Nor does victor's definition of NEIGHBOR agree with Christ, as I showed above. WordWolf succinctly explains Christ's definition of NEIGHBOR further up thread.
Much of what victor taught was antiChrist. The evidence for this is not faulty, as Mike imaginatively claims. The evidence is right there in WHAT victor said, WHERE he said it, HOW (H-O-W) he said it, and TO WHOM he said it.
No, they do not. Nor does victor's definition of NEIGHBOR agree with Christ, as I showed above. WordWolf succinctly explains Christ's definition of NEIGHBOR further up thread.
Much of what victor taught was antiChrist. The evidence for this is not faulty, as Mike imaginatively claims. The evidence is right there in WHAT victor said, WHERE he said it, HOW (H-O-W) he said it, and TO WHOM he said it.
Hey! I didn't write the book.
I couldnt agree more. I loved the point yall made on definition of neighbor.
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
"If you love God, and love your neighbor as yourself, you can do as you fool well please."
=============================
Ok.
Take a minister who leaves his denomination with stories of "inappropriate behavior with his secretary".
Then send him to where there are Christians and some people pushing "free love" and orgies.
Why is he there?
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=160989
Jim D explained it.
" As we relaxed and had a second drink, he asked Judy and me to describe what is was like
to attend an orgy. We were taken back by the question and embarrassed by it, because even though it was part of our testimony in our deliverance from sin to God's righteousness, no one had ever asked us to describe what it was like to go to an orgy.
We found his curiosity shocking. But we gave him a brief description which is really all we could give him since our encounter with an orgy had been so brief. We had attended one orgy sponsored by the San Francisco Sexual Freedom League, but we were so overwhelmed by the spectacle that we had left after twenty minutes.
"You know that's all available," V.P. said. "God put it in I Corinthians 7:1 which He said 'It is good for a man not to touch a woman.' If it wasn't available to have sex outside the marriage God would have said 'best' instead of 'good.'"
I could not believe what I was hearing. I responded with, "I just thank God that He pulled our soul out of that pit of debauchery." When Judy and I went to bed, I said to her, "I don't believe what he said tonight, and I'm going to forget it. I must have misunderstood him."
vpw told Jim God said orgies were "available."
==============
""Weirwille sought things to validate his position. He did NOT research the word and change his opinion to IT. I becamed pretty good friends with Jim D*0p. He told me that he, Jim, had a ministry where they were sexually loose and an anything goes kinda group out in California. Weirwille flew out there, telling folks it was to talk with Jim about the Bible and witness or something to him. Jim told me Weirwille flew out there to LEARN from Jimmy about the free sex thinking. Weirwille said he always believed sex should be free and allowed with as many as you feel you want to be with -- but could NEVER prove it from the Bible. He was there to see if Jimmy could prove it was okay via scripture.
D0*p never really could and was more of a hippie minister than a sexual pervert looking for Biblical validation.
Weirwille had these concepts, notions, urges, illnesses and tried to find a way to SELL them to us. He was not about to CHANGE his thinking according to scripture. He was not a researcher. He was similar to a lot of cult leaders. He had an idea and looked for people who would buy into it. Like Charlie Manson."
=================
""He also told a small group at Emporia one night to teach their children about their bodies, "you can brush their nipple with your hand and show them how it hardens. You can show them not to be ashamed of their body reactions" Then he shared about the African Tribe where the Father broke the hymen of the daughters to get them experienced in sex to prepare them for marriage -- he thought it to be beautiful.
VPW had already let me see his dark side. Sitting there I thought OH MY GOD, this is subtle but
he is teaching this group that it is beautiful to teach your daughters how to have sex, it is just not accepted in our culture!
He was standing behind his sex problems and setting us up to have sex with our godly "family" as well as the earthly one."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[I noticed some time back that vpw's summary led to
"DO AS YOU FOOL WELL PLEASE."
That was vpw's standard. That was vpw's goal.
That was what vpw said in conclusion, too.
He claimed that the LAW had been boiled down to two rules,
then discarded both.
He said it was all subsumed in "Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself."
He then said that "if you love God, and love your neighbor as yourself,
then you can do as you fool well please."
He never spent any time on what either would entail, however-
probably because his goal was not "love God and love your neighbor as yourself",
(for his actions showed neither), but his coda of
"do as you fool well please."
I mean, think about it. "Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength,
and love your neighbor as yourself"
IS THE OPPOSITE OF
vpw's "do as you fool well please."
The one who cares about God will seek to do the things that please God-
and will seek to bless others because God likes that.
The one who only cares about himself will "do as he fool well pleases."
In hindsight, vpw's rule is less kind than Christians in general, in all the
churches, and is less kind than the rule the wiccans/pagans follow.
Their rule is "IF IT HURTS NO ONE, do what you will."
If vpw had even the morals of the pagans and wiccans, he would not have
drugged, molested, nor raped others. Other Christians just find this level
of morals horrifying.
Look- we love Daddy and want to make Him happy because He's so nice.
So, He tells us what actions make him happy, and we do them.
We don't need Him to threaten to punish us for not doing them.
We love Him and want to make Him proud.
How can anyone possibly have trouble understanding this?]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
T-Bone:
"
i think we ought to call it variations on a theme; vp had numerous ways of asserting this same malleable code of ethics:
love God & neighbor and do as you fool well please
what i may allow in my life you may not allow in yours and visa versa [used often in many of his live teachings]
~~
and several i remember from the pajama party mentioned in my post # 460 - after showing us the bestiality video he addressed the possibility that some of us may have been kinda weirded out by it - saying such things as
unto the pure all things are pure
when you become spiritually mature you can handle anything
i've so renewed my mind that things like this don't bother me
he said he showed us the video out of his concern for us as potential leaders who can't afford to be shocked by anything if we want to help people - he tied that into anything done in the love of God is okay - like him preparing us for extremely unusual counseling situations - it takes the love of God to do that
~~
folks here can probably mention more variations on a theme.....but it was the same old theme wasn't it - i can do as i fool well please !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
As for vpw's explanation of "love God, love your neighbor, then you can do as you fool well please" was both UNINFORMATIVE and INCORRECT. The entire purpose of that was to INSERT vpw's "private interpretation" (as he would call it) into a verse that did not contain "do as you fool well please." The goal was to get people used to the idea that God Almighty was fine with them "doing as they fool well pleased". However, that contradicted the actual verses.
It's so obvious. IF you actually A) love God Almighty with everything you've got and B) love your neighbor like you love yourself,
then it is IMPOSSIBLE to "do as you fool well please."
Your actions will reflect pleasing God and being a good neighbor and making God and neighbor happy. And before anyone claims that just applied to someone living next door, Jesus himself clarified "who is my neighbor" with the parable of The Good Samaritan. THAT was the example Jesus gave.
Luke 10: 29-37 KJV
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
Which was the example Jesus gave? He found the stranger, and had him healed and taken care of at his own expense. "Go and do thou likewise." As for the priest and the Levite, who SUPPOSEDLY served God and avoided the stranger who needed help? They did as they fool well pleased. According to vpw, that was FINE- becuase he was setting the stage for himself to have free reign to do whatever he wanted to, and encourage likewise. vpw had FAR more in common with the religious hypocrites of Jesus' day than with the disciples he CLAIMED to resemble (and insinuate he outperformed.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
T-Bone:
"Jesus summarized the entire Jewish law with love - love for God and love for others . He did NOT simplify the law. There is a difference!
Jesus spoke of the first and great commandment and the second is like unto it - to love God and to love neighbor - He said the entire law and the prophets hang on that. That is a summary- He indicated all prohibitions to sin - i.e., to NOT commit adultery, to NOT lie, to NOT steal, etc., He recapitulated all the main points of the law showing how they all relate to loving God and neighbor.
In PFAL wierwille taught it WRONG! He simplified it - he said Jesus reduced all the law down to just 2 commandments. To reduce or simplify is to eliminate or lessen components. Knowing about wierwille’s moral depravity, it makes perfect sense he would like to blur boundaries and obfuscate what is right and wrong. There’s no specifics…it’s left up to the individual to determine what is right and wrong….That’s how he could commit unconscionable acts and rationalize sin out of it by saying “anything done in the love of God is okay”
Jesus didn’t teach THAT! He summarized! It’s like He drew a big umbrella over all the specific prohibitions and said the love for God and others are the prime directives - that love covers every scenario! If you love God and others you should not commit adultery, you should not lie, steal, etc. Love was the basis for the law!
The summary does not eliminate any components - it merely gives the big picture of how we conduct our lives should always reflect loving God and others."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In short, if you love God with everything you've got, and love your neighbor like you love yourself, nobody has to tell you not to steal, not to kill, etc,- BECAUSE YOU'LL AVOID DOING THEM WITHOUT SPECIFIC RULES.
vpw's own rule was different: "If you love God, and you love your neighbor, you can do as you fool well please." He started with loving God and neighbor, but changed that you would follow the rules automatically (which is interesting because he mentioned that quickly in passing.) Why the difference? vpw went in small steps from what the verses said, to what he WANTED the verses to say. He went from "If you love God and love your neighbor, you'll follow the whole law automatically" to "so long as you love God and love your neighbor, you can do as you fool well please" to "anything done with the love of God is pure" "to the pure, all things are pure" etc. In small steps, he went from "obey the law out of love" to "you can do whatever you want and it's fine". Why did he want that? He wanted to justify doing whatever he wanted and wanted to pretend God Almighty was fine with that. It's no different than when he told Jim D00p that God Almighty was fine with ORGIES and tried to use a verse to justify it.
For those who wonder where you've seen the small steps before, it's a very old technique. Someone went from "Has God said 'you shall not eat of every tree in the garden?" step by step to go from "you shall surely die" to "you shall not surely die". Whose techniques did vpw copy? BTW, did vpw do that knowing enough about the Bible to know whose work he was copying (knowing he was copying the devil's playbook to rationalize the sin he himself wanted to do) or was vpw that deficient in the meaning of Scripture that he ripped off the devil's own techniques, techniques mentioned right in pfal, out of ignorance? It was either one or the other.
(Usually, when there's a conundrum like this, where all possible answers are bad, someone makes a personal attack on me, so it's probably time for that very thing now, for those arriving late.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Who is my neighbor?
Jesus explained that one with a parable about a Jew who needed help, and, of all people, one of those stinking, lousy, no-good, low-down SAMARITANS was the person who helped him. Jesus made it clear that SAMARITAN was the one who "was neighbor" to the Jew who needed help. It was such a noxious concept that the Jew who asked him couldn't bring him to say "the SAMARITAN who helped him", but said "the one who showed mercy on him." Jesus, having told the parable of the Good Samaritan, said to do like that guy. "Go and do thou likewise" is how the KJV renders it.
So, who's your neighbor?
According to Jesus, you can't exclude that Muslim, that Jew, that Black guy, that Asian guy, that Pakistani, that African dude, that redneck, that smug anti-Christian, that Pastafarian, etc.
Jesus set the standard very high, and said to do that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Well done, WW. Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Deut 27:17: "Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen."
Somewhere or other in PFAL VPW goes into this meaning, "the landmark of the mind, one's personal boundaries." Cursed be those who shift one's boundaries.
I have so often thought of this, because what happens in TWI is that the more one becomes enmeshed, the more one's boundaries and one's moral compass are shifted. A little bit here, a little nudge there, an unchallenged overstretch elsewhere... It all goes to shifting the boundaries of the mind. Until finally, there are few boundaries, and such as they are depend almost entirely on dictats of the cult leader. The insidious nature of this can be hard to spot at first.
It may well be true that some of us had inappropriate boundaries - too strict or too lax - that maybe should have been moved. Our morals might not have been very healthy. But any movement should have been to bring us closer into alignment with the scriptures - not to enable us to do whatever we wanted "in the love of God." NO NO NO a thousand times NO!
And that doesn't just mean our sexual boundaries, but boundaries relating to honesty, integrity, not stealing, not lying, not hurting each other ("tough love"). Work time. Family time. Sleep time. Recreational time. Day to day living has boundaries, and if appropriate they need to be respected. What somebody else chooses might not be your choice, but it's theirs to choose. And yours to respect.
Tis but short steps between immorality, amorality and becoming completely callous towards others. Brutal, even.
Just refresh yourselves on 2 Peter 2, which well describes "false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies" (verse 1) and slashes through the "do as you like" ideas that some false teacher even then were propounding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I agree with your treatment of boundaries, Twinky. Boundaries are so important for our wellbeing. For some of us, setting and enforcing boundaries can be a matter of life or death.
But...
victor paul wierwille, cult founder, in 1973, when "teaching" his Corps on Romans, said, if no one sees you disrespecting another's boundaries, it won't influence the example you set for others -- UNLESS you beleeeve it will.
The lesson: are you BELEEVING to move someone's boundaries? Don't do it... dooooon't do it... don't BELEEEVE you are moving someone's boundaries and you won't be. Just be sure to only disrespect someone's boundaries in secret, and don't beleeeve it's happening. Simple. ABC. Math.
Hey! I didn't teach Romans to the Corps in 1973. Got a problem? Take it up with management.
ALSO, Deut 27:17 is absolutely NOT about a "landmark of the mind." It's about land/property boundaries. Hey! I didn't write the book, but if victor paul wierwille wants to change what the word says, it's no longer the word.
Furthermore, Deuteronomy 27 lists several laws. Deuteronomy 28 lists God's promises for obeying those laws. HOWEVER, those laws and promises are not written TO us. (Whew! That was a close call.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
In that same "teaching" to his Corps in the glory days of 1973, victor paul wierwille "taught" what a neighbor is. Victor's definition goes against what Christ taught. Victor's teaching is antiChrist.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
He said that? Jeepers! Won't influence others?
What about the continual undermining of one's own integrity? What about building a habit of disrespecting others? You are what you think, and sooner or later what you think will spill over into your actions.
He clearly missed the gems such as 1 Sam 16:7 - for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
He didn't say exactly that, but that is exactly what he meant.
If you want, I can send you the transcript. Here's the Q&A at the end of the Corps "teaching" between victor paul wierwille and Loy Craig Martindale:
LCM: How much does you behavior that people do not see influence your example to them?
VPW: It doesn't, unless you believe it will.
LCM: You understand what I asked?
VPW: I sure did and I gave you the proper answer.
LCM: I asked, How much does you behavior that people do not see influence your example to them?
VPW: Alright, Kurt?
KURT: In verse 15 of chapter 14....
Edited by Nathan_JrGloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Wow....that goes to show that LCM knew the correct answer scripturally and wierwille led him astray right on the spot, thus LCM's retort "You understand what I asked?" Ive always though wierwille corrupted LCM and this is a little piece of that puzzle...thanks NateJr.
Follow this link and hit ctl and F at the same time so it searches the webpage. Search the word secret
https://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/6.htm
that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
and then there is:
or there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.
I would say that the words of wierwille do not agree with the Words of Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
No, they do not. Nor does victor's definition of NEIGHBOR agree with Christ, as I showed above. WordWolf succinctly explains Christ's definition of NEIGHBOR further up thread.
Much of what victor taught was antiChrist. The evidence for this is not faulty, as Mike imaginatively claims. The evidence is right there in WHAT victor said, WHERE he said it, HOW (H-O-W) he said it, and TO WHOM he said it.
Hey! I didn't write the book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I couldnt agree more. I loved the point yall made on definition of neighbor.
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.