Trefor: I'm sure Jesus did express an opinion on the subject. It just wasn't written in scripture, but since he's the living word of God, his opinion couldn't have contradicted the written word of God. I remember watching Reggie White get flamed on the 20/20 show for having expressed his views on homosexuality (he addressed some Wisconsin group of politicians). During the same program this woman who was with some gay and lesbian organization said "How many times did Jesus Christ directly confront homosexuality? Not once!" Oh, really? My response to that is...how many times did Jesus Christ directly confront rape or drunk driving? Not once. Does this mean that those two things are also acceptable? I KNOW there's people on this thread who would have a problem with that.
God decides what is natural. Not you. It says plainly in Romans 1:26&27 that homosexuality is against nature. You can either rebel against what God says or humble yourself before Him (not me) and ask for his help. One thing that is relevant here that irks me about TWI is that they HAD to assign devil spirits to every "jot and tittle" of human behavior.
I believe Jesus and Paul and others in the bible knew how to deal with evil spirits but I have gotten so wearied hearing every burp and fart blamed on devil spirits by TWI that I have no use for people who talk about them all the time with nothing to show for it. To my knowledge there is no lust type behavior in the bible directly attributed to a devil spirit. When I first saw your name next to a post here I'm happy to tell you that I heard no 'still small voice' or moving loud voice or any kind of voice saying "Hey, man. This guy's gay."
I do not believe that you are "more evil" than anybody else here. I'm sure there's plenty I can learn from reading your posts. Yes, I'm prejudiced against homosexuality. I'm sure you're also prejudiced against my attitude now. I don't hate you; I probably could have made my point on the post which originally got your attention without mentioning Leviticus 18. I'll try to keep that in mind, but what's done is done. Besides, I've posted my views on other threads.
All we can do now is basically agree to dis agree.
But, there is always change Zix, look at the world around us.
I feel that I might have room in my world to experience changes from time to time
~ nothing major, mind you ~
...favorite restaurant
...fall wardrobe
...potted plants
...definately NOT my hair colour
There are things that generally won't change.
Like I wouldn't expect the morals I have to be revised any time soon
...or my hospitable nature
...or my tolerence level for other peoples' individuality
...or my appreciation of relationships.
And I do realize that 100 or 1000 or a gazillion little clones running around just like me ~ sounding like me ~ looking like me ~ and ~ dear NO ~ posting here like me
~ would not necessarily make this particular world a better place for all concerned.
So, why the f*** do you want me to be like you Zix?
Now, if you think about it Zixar, how comfortable WOULD you be in a like-minded ~
all wearing the same shirt Zix-world ~
or even all Republican party world ~
or a Demo-tree-huggin'-barefoot-incense burning-tofu loving-no fur coat for you
or rebel flag-wavin', don't touch my guns,
back offa' my turf you foreigners who don't look like us types
Remember all these words are to be pronounced in unison by the like-minded ~
for the full audio/visual effect
(mental images required here).
Yes, of course, you & I are different...that is to be expected.
Were it not the case , that might be frightening.
My point point point is, finally,
whatever your bent or ilk is, your individuality makes a statement, whether or not it's spelled properly or in a context every person gleans, the content..., the intent..., and the thought behind the statement is still there,as well as the real live individual makeing that statement.
Now I have noticed plenty of times ~ when you Zixar, have rattled off this or that in scientific jargon that many lay-persons would have difficulty understanding...and you have been generous with your time to explain or coach along a curious poster through the rigors of this or that concept. A stretch for some, boring to others, and interesting to many.
However, that in itself does not make YOU a freak. That is for sure a form of individuality.
You have many characteristics that make you
a whole person.
What I feel may be the most injurious
character trait (flaw maybe) is
how when you could be generous enough to
allow others, myself for instance,
to be different in all that is not Zixlike,
Instead I have, in the past, reaped the
callous, snide, cutting meanspirited
(your different sooo...
there MUST be something WRONG with you) intolerent arrogance that has characterized
my perception of who you are as an individual.
I am interested in changing my perception
on this small matter of difference.
What, if anything would you concider contributing to my conversion to...
Whew. I just found this thread this evening and it's taken over three hours to catch up.
And alas, I feel that I don't have much to contribute. But I'll toss out a crumb or two just for the fun of it.
Although I didn't make it into the "Corpse", I did get to run a CF&S Class. I still don't know why they picked me to run it, but I was honored at the time. I had already taken the class at least once as a student. I think I've been through it three times in all.
And there were pictures in the video class; pictures of what VP called the seven basic positions for sexual intercourse. And I remember him specifying which ones provided the deepest penetration. All in all, it was a rather, strange experience.
The rationale for the slang was, as has been offered, to enable us to counsel common folk without getting embarrassed or seeming to be 'out of touch'. Whether there was an ulterior motive is obviously a matter of debate, but , imho, there was some good in the class for those who came from a very strict background and just didn't know much about pleasing their spouses.
For those of us who were young and single, as I was when I first took it, it was also very supportive of non-traditional, licentious behaviour. VP did say that he couldn't flatly say that premarital sex is a sin, because of the vast differences between our culture and the 'biblical culture'
Maybe I'm still brainwashed but I think that's a valid point. However I must say that Mike's rantings about how we are culturally conditioned to be feel outrage at sexual molestation is pure insantiy. There's an enormous difference between consentual premarital sex and molestation. Any rational person knows this. nuff said.
So what was CF&S about? Dot put it best with her brilliant A, B, and C analogy. It was a class offered with multiple purposes. For the A group, it was designed to alleviate some stress, anxiety, ignorance that may have plagued some of the ministry's followers and hampered their marial bliss. For the B group, it was a recruiting drive, designed to soften people's inhibitions to make it easier for the C group to recruit people to the motorcoach.
For the record, I was an "A" heading for "B" when the whole thing collapsed. So I don't know for a fact that there was malicious intent, but, based on the ample testimony of people like Dot and Excathedra, I have come to reluctantly believe that a man I once revered was actually a lurid sexual predator.
I'm still trying to figure out how much damage was done to my attitudes and relationships with women, most notably my longsuffering wifey by some of VP's teaching. I accepted the "angel in the kitchen devil in the bedroom" maxim, partly because I like the sound of it and partly because I've heard it repeated in slightly different terms from others, including women.
But my wife has never felt comfortable with it, so maybe it's just another sublt form of mysogyny. (Did I spell that right?)
Some of what VP taught in the class was both controversial and contradictory. He did say that flesh is flesh, so there's no difference between touching a breast or a nose. But he also said--and I believe these are direct quotes--"all touch is spiritual", and "sexual passion is deeply spiritual" If touch is spiritual, it really doesnt' matter where you touch someone, it's going to have an impact. By that logic, if you touch a woman's shoulder with salacious intent, it's just as bad, just as upsetting, as touching her breast. Well maybe not, but it's still wrong and upsetting. :-)
This is especially confusing because one of the things he taught from I Corinthians 7 was that it's wrong to touch a woman because women are aroused by touch. You can arouse a woman with a backrub. (I've done this by accident; it was kind of fun.) So the mixed messages in the class about touch may be due to the conflicting motives of presenting a class that would maintain relative decency at the twig level while preparing people for debauchery at the root level.
quote:...VPW taught one night to a small group in res. how in Africa there was a tribe where the father would break the hymen of their daughters and teach them about sex so they would be experienced for their husbands...
has been bothering me all day. I'd heard it before, but not from Wierwille.
Then it hit me--I had read it before, and I think it was in Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask. Except that Dr. Reuben related that story as it was the older women in the tribe who would deflower the girls and teach them about sex, not their own fathers as VPW claimed. I'll see if I can't find the reference, but it just made me want to vomit...
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the word of God..."
Dot: Yeah, your post explained a couple of things I'd wondered about.
1) I couldn't fathom how a man who taught such great bible...how his conscience could allow him to do such self serving, hurtful things to others. But if he really believed that his 'ministry' made it OK to touch like that...? Well, there you go. Sad. I'm married. My wife and I sleep in the same bed. Touching is good. I can touch her without preauthorization, but not anytime anywhere. Even with my own wife I have to use courtesy. Sheesh!
2) During my time in TWI, I probably visited HQ, Emporia, and Rome City several times each. Every so often (maybe 3 or 4 times total) I would be at one of those places and corps would be all over the place working or doing other things and my eyes would light on a woman's facial expression and it really seemed to me like she was pondering some tough secret that preoccupied her a lot. I naively thought she was in tune with the 'urgency of the times' or whatever TWI called it and that she was really locked in committed. Now I'm guessing she was recently aware of this inner circle and aghast as to how she got into this situation. This happened at least 3 times; same facial expression. Hell, Dot, one of those times it might have been YOU!
quote:Trefor: I'm sure Jesus did express an opinion on the subject. It just wasn't written in scripture, but since he's the living word of God, his opinion couldn't have contradicted the written word of God.
Firstly you must remember the "written word" he had was not the same as that which we have. he only had the Old Testament to go by and he still contradicted the popular understanding of what it meant. The scribes and the pharisees thought they were experts on that "written word".
quote:Oh, really? My response to that is...how many times did Jesus Christ directly confront rape or drunk driving? Not once. Does this mean that those two things are also acceptable? I KNOW there's people on this thread who would have a problem with that.
The absence of one thing being discussed and the absence of another is not a logical argument. Jesus said nothing about TWI or the internet or the theory of relativity either. But in the things you cite you don't need Jesus or the Bible to tell you that such things as you cite are socially unacceptable.
quote:.
God decides what is natural. Not you. It says plainly in Romans 1:26&27 that homosexuality is against nature. You can either rebel against what God says or humble yourself before Him (not me) and ask for his help. One thing that is relevant here that irks me about TWI is that they HAD to assign devil spirits to every "jot and tittle" of human behavior.
I will agree with you on TWI. Does God *really* decide what is natural by having it written down in a book or does he decide what is natural in elements of his creation? You cite an obscure text which is in any case mistranlsated as a QED.
Where you can examine the so called "Bible Bullets" in more depth.
You also make an assumption that I have not already tried what you suggest - hell being in TWI of course I did and believe me it doesn't work. Could it *posibly* be because God is happy with me as I am, that is how he created me? You will no doubt disagree but that is my conclusion now.
quote: When I first saw your name next to a post here I'm happy to tell you that I heard no 'still small voice' or moving loud voice or any kind of voice saying "Hey, man. This guy's gay."
And neither did the "super spiritual VPW or LCM neither nor anyone I knew in TWI except the ones I actually told. I always thought that IF it was that important somebody would have had the necessary revelation.
quote:I do not believe that you are "more evil" than anybody else here. I'm sure there's plenty I can learn from reading your posts. Yes, I'm prejudiced against homosexuality. I'm sure you're also prejudiced against my attitude now. I don't hate you; I probably could have made my point on the post which originally got your attention without mentioning Leviticus 18. I'll try to keep that in mind, but what's done is done. Besides, I've posted my views on other threads.
At least you admit your prejudice. My argument is that the Bible can be used to back up loads of different prejudices including racial and sexual ones. It has been used to justify slavery, polygamy, mass murder, discrimination against women, war and many other things. It is just so easy to read things into the Bible that you already believe. It reminds me of Trollope's Barchester novels where Mrs Proudie, the Bishop's wife is always saying:
"the Bishop thinks, and I must say I agree with him" when what the Bishop thinks has never been clearly expressed.
quote:All we can do now is basically agree to disagree
Well of course. I don't hate people either for their views but I do believe it's important to challenge them. :D-->
I am not sure that I have ever said that the Bible is just "some book" nor even how it puts me in agreement with Mike. What I have queried was how it is read and used and how it is untreated as some unchanging unquestionable authority that has an answer for everything if you read it carefully enough.
Hell, I LOVE the Bible, I just don't like the way it is used.
Look, I don't want to get into this again with either of you. I already apologized to you both for my error on the other page, and there's too much vital information on this thread. It doesn't need to turn into yet another bitchfest. You want to have a go at me? Be my guest. But why not be courteous and start another thread, at least?
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the word of God..."
and the preacher said "can't we all just get along?"
and the congregation said "amen"
ya know... for a long time now I've thought that religion really does cause a lot of prejudice and hate in the world...
I don't know if the thought started in my mind the first time I heard "Imagine" or at some other time, but...
When I read some of the posts back and forth here, particularly between Trefor and Johniam, I want to ask myself and Johniam the question: is there any other reason that you are "prejudiced" about homosexuality other than your religious beliefs? ...I'd hate to think that I might miss a chance to meet and know a great individual (Trefor or others), or be shortchanged on the relationship just because of what religion told me...
I have seen a lot of spiritualy sound thoughts and ideas displayed by Trefor .... much more so than some of those who brandish the label *christian* on this board.....
So you have a guy that exhibits many fruit of the spirit but hasn`t got the proper *label* ...and you have guys who claim to be the *spiritual* ones who enjoy rending and tearing up anyone that doesn`t agree with their particular formula........
Who`s really behaving in a Godly manner? ..... Who`s really in the right?
Trefor: That website is ridiculous. First of all, the bible DOES mention sexual orientation. Gen. 1:27 So God created them in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. There they are: male and female. Nothing about homo, hetero, trans, or bisexual. I'm not "heterosexual", I'm MALE. THAT is my sexual orientation. Secondly, if you can throw Romans 1 out of the bible, I can throw John 3:16 out, too. Either it's God's word or it's man's word. I believe it's God's word.
Tom S: There's a difference between religion and God. Namely, one is man made, one is not. Religion is all man made, but it's what we call any attempt to know God. Some religion succeeds, some doesn't. As for "Imagine", that song is my personal poster child for socialist hypocrisy. You've no doubt seen the video where he's playing the song while Yoko is opening the blinds letting in light symbolizing that the words to the song are 'light of understanding'. Isn't there a scripture about those that call darkness light and light darkness?
So Lennon's playing this song and he sings...imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can. Well gee John, maybe it would be easier for me to imagine no possessions if I didn't have to see you playing an expensive piano, wearing expensive clothes, using expensive recording equipment, in an expensively furnished room, in an expensive building, located on expensive land, whew! Then, MAYBE I could imagine no possessions.
As for Trefor, he is no different than anyone else here. There is a poster here who calls himself MrPMosh. He will tell you that there is no God and that religion is for those who cannot deal with reality. I don't agree with that any more than I agree with Trefor, but I'll read his posts. Recently he posted on two threads I posted on with some info I was happy to get. I can learn something from anyone. Sure, it's nice to have posters you feel you connect with, but it's OK to have diversity, too. This forum is intriguing; we do interpersonally relate, yet we don't bear the burden of being personally present with each other.
While I read your post I was thinking I bet he saw me. IT was so HEAVY to carry around....
I wonder if it was me. Or one of my "enlightened" friends. Then, I read the line where you said IT COULD BE YOU!!!
Funny, I had a dear guy friend in the 13th corps. He was so cute he looked like Rob Lowe.
We were very close friends. He was hit on by some of the "inner circle" girls. One girl unbuttoned her blouse and told him she wanted to bless him; a MOG. He buttoned her blouse back up and declined the offer.
He was SO good looking he had women hit on him out in the world all the time - bars, bowling alley's etc. IT was a turn-off. He liked women who were not loose, who were confident and intelligent. After this happened, to him a couple times, it was weighing on him heavily and he was praying while sitting under a tree. Someone reported him for "not smiling".
These people who were sold out to the inner circle walked around with plastered smiles and ready genitals/taila. They were "leadership material".
My great-looking, smart, unwilling to screw around and use women friend, who was ONLY there because he LOVED GOD, was thrown out because he did not have the right attitude. I bet one of MOGGIE'S playthings reported him.
You are correct even in marriage there is appropriate/courteous touching.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
39
66
34
Popular Days
Sep 20
84
Sep 19
78
Sep 22
63
Sep 21
53
Top Posters In This Topic
RottieGrrrl 32 posts
excathedra 39 posts
Dot Matrix 66 posts
WhiteDove 34 posts
Popular Days
Sep 20 2003
84 posts
Sep 19 2003
78 posts
Sep 22 2003
63 posts
Sep 21 2003
53 posts
johniam
Trefor: I'm sure Jesus did express an opinion on the subject. It just wasn't written in scripture, but since he's the living word of God, his opinion couldn't have contradicted the written word of God. I remember watching Reggie White get flamed on the 20/20 show for having expressed his views on homosexuality (he addressed some Wisconsin group of politicians). During the same program this woman who was with some gay and lesbian organization said "How many times did Jesus Christ directly confront homosexuality? Not once!" Oh, really? My response to that is...how many times did Jesus Christ directly confront rape or drunk driving? Not once. Does this mean that those two things are also acceptable? I KNOW there's people on this thread who would have a problem with that.
God decides what is natural. Not you. It says plainly in Romans 1:26&27 that homosexuality is against nature. You can either rebel against what God says or humble yourself before Him (not me) and ask for his help. One thing that is relevant here that irks me about TWI is that they HAD to assign devil spirits to every "jot and tittle" of human behavior.
I believe Jesus and Paul and others in the bible knew how to deal with evil spirits but I have gotten so wearied hearing every burp and fart blamed on devil spirits by TWI that I have no use for people who talk about them all the time with nothing to show for it. To my knowledge there is no lust type behavior in the bible directly attributed to a devil spirit. When I first saw your name next to a post here I'm happy to tell you that I heard no 'still small voice' or moving loud voice or any kind of voice saying "Hey, man. This guy's gay."
I do not believe that you are "more evil" than anybody else here. I'm sure there's plenty I can learn from reading your posts. Yes, I'm prejudiced against homosexuality. I'm sure you're also prejudiced against my attitude now. I don't hate you; I probably could have made my point on the post which originally got your attention without mentioning Leviticus 18. I'll try to keep that in mind, but what's done is done. Besides, I've posted my views on other threads.
All we can do now is basically agree to dis agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
johniam Please check your private topics.
...Ain't no grave, gonna hold this body down..when I hear that trumpet sound...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i have to try to be honest. standing up for myself and my beliefs, whatever "they" may be, is not my longsuit
i also feel bad when things go bad
i know i curse and scream like a banshee sometimes and that can be viewed badly (still always worry about that sorry)
but i still don't know what to say when people i care about (and / or ones whose shoes i try to put on) dah dah dah ...... say things
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluzeman
Heck, I'm just looking for more of those slang terms that I've never heard!
:)-->
Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ginger Tea
iss~ues
gazuntieght (sp)!
~
So, here we are together again
Well Zix
I realize that you are just exactly who you are.
Wouldn't have it any other way.
And I, me, myself, am who I am...
Don't think I want to change that.
.Much.
But, there is always change Zix, look at the world around us.
I feel that I might have room in my world to experience changes from time to time
~ nothing major, mind you ~
...favorite restaurant
...fall wardrobe
...potted plants
...definately NOT my hair colour
There are things that generally won't change.
Like I wouldn't expect the morals I have to be revised any time soon
...or my hospitable nature
...or my tolerence level for other peoples' individuality
...or my appreciation of relationships.
And I do realize that 100 or 1000 or a gazillion little clones running around just like me ~ sounding like me ~ looking like me ~ and ~ dear NO ~ posting here like me
~ would not necessarily make this particular world a better place for all concerned.
So, why the f*** do you want me to be like you Zix?
Now, if you think about it Zixar, how comfortable WOULD you be in a like-minded ~
all wearing the same shirt Zix-world ~
or even all Republican party world ~
or a Demo-tree-huggin'-barefoot-incense burning-tofu loving-no fur coat for you
or rebel flag-wavin', don't touch my guns,
back offa' my turf you foreigners who don't look like us types
Remember all these words are to be pronounced in unison by the like-minded ~
for the full audio/visual effect
(mental images required here).
Yes, of course, you & I are different...that is to be expected.
Were it not the case , that might be frightening.
My point point point is, finally,
whatever your bent or ilk is, your individuality makes a statement, whether or not it's spelled properly or in a context every person gleans, the content..., the intent..., and the thought behind the statement is still there,as well as the real live individual makeing that statement.
Now I have noticed plenty of times ~ when you Zixar, have rattled off this or that in scientific jargon that many lay-persons would have difficulty understanding...and you have been generous with your time to explain or coach along a curious poster through the rigors of this or that concept. A stretch for some, boring to others, and interesting to many.
However, that in itself does not make YOU a freak. That is for sure a form of individuality.
You have many characteristics that make you
a whole person.
What I feel may be the most injurious
character trait (flaw maybe) is
how when you could be generous enough to
allow others, myself for instance,
to be different in all that is not Zixlike,
Instead I have, in the past, reaped the
callous, snide, cutting meanspirited
(your different sooo...
there MUST be something WRONG with you) intolerent arrogance that has characterized
my perception of who you are as an individual.
I am interested in changing my perception
on this small matter of difference.
What, if anything would you concider contributing to my conversion to...
Zix compatable...,and interesting...
,but different then me land?
Ginger
P.S. the content of my post is not to Flame,
but inflame the imagination with the genuine
gifts that are... civility
~ ciao bello ~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
being ourselves IS so important and allowing others the same....
being labeled, pigeonholed, blackballed, all that stuff, can at times hurt so much more than blatant abuse
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Ginger: A few things, maybe.
1) All viewpoints are not created equal.
2) Coherence is a virtue, not a sin.
3) The ENTER key is not really a punctuation mark.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Whew. I just found this thread this evening and it's taken over three hours to catch up.
And alas, I feel that I don't have much to contribute. But I'll toss out a crumb or two just for the fun of it.
Although I didn't make it into the "Corpse", I did get to run a CF&S Class. I still don't know why they picked me to run it, but I was honored at the time. I had already taken the class at least once as a student. I think I've been through it three times in all.
And there were pictures in the video class; pictures of what VP called the seven basic positions for sexual intercourse. And I remember him specifying which ones provided the deepest penetration. All in all, it was a rather, strange experience.
The rationale for the slang was, as has been offered, to enable us to counsel common folk without getting embarrassed or seeming to be 'out of touch'. Whether there was an ulterior motive is obviously a matter of debate, but , imho, there was some good in the class for those who came from a very strict background and just didn't know much about pleasing their spouses.
For those of us who were young and single, as I was when I first took it, it was also very supportive of non-traditional, licentious behaviour. VP did say that he couldn't flatly say that premarital sex is a sin, because of the vast differences between our culture and the 'biblical culture'
Maybe I'm still brainwashed but I think that's a valid point. However I must say that Mike's rantings about how we are culturally conditioned to be feel outrage at sexual molestation is pure insantiy. There's an enormous difference between consentual premarital sex and molestation. Any rational person knows this. nuff said.
So what was CF&S about? Dot put it best with her brilliant A, B, and C analogy. It was a class offered with multiple purposes. For the A group, it was designed to alleviate some stress, anxiety, ignorance that may have plagued some of the ministry's followers and hampered their marial bliss. For the B group, it was a recruiting drive, designed to soften people's inhibitions to make it easier for the C group to recruit people to the motorcoach.
For the record, I was an "A" heading for "B" when the whole thing collapsed. So I don't know for a fact that there was malicious intent, but, based on the ample testimony of people like Dot and Excathedra, I have come to reluctantly believe that a man I once revered was actually a lurid sexual predator.
I'm still trying to figure out how much damage was done to my attitudes and relationships with women, most notably my longsuffering wifey by some of VP's teaching. I accepted the "angel in the kitchen devil in the bedroom" maxim, partly because I like the sound of it and partly because I've heard it repeated in slightly different terms from others, including women.
But my wife has never felt comfortable with it, so maybe it's just another sublt form of mysogyny. (Did I spell that right?)
Some of what VP taught in the class was both controversial and contradictory. He did say that flesh is flesh, so there's no difference between touching a breast or a nose. But he also said--and I believe these are direct quotes--"all touch is spiritual", and "sexual passion is deeply spiritual" If touch is spiritual, it really doesnt' matter where you touch someone, it's going to have an impact. By that logic, if you touch a woman's shoulder with salacious intent, it's just as bad, just as upsetting, as touching her breast. Well maybe not, but it's still wrong and upsetting. :-)
This is especially confusing because one of the things he taught from I Corinthians 7 was that it's wrong to touch a woman because women are aroused by touch. You can arouse a woman with a backrub. (I've done this by accident; it was kind of fun.) So the mixed messages in the class about touch may be due to the conflicting motives of presenting a class that would maintain relative decency at the twig level while preparing people for debauchery at the root level.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Dot: Your quote about
has been bothering me all day. I'd heard it before, but not from Wierwille.Then it hit me--I had read it before, and I think it was in Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask. Except that Dr. Reuben related that story as it was the older women in the tribe who would deflower the girls and teach them about sex, not their own fathers as VPW claimed. I'll see if I can't find the reference, but it just made me want to vomit...
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WeWereScammed
-Thats bull..... He was raised in a barn. He was a FREAKSHOW. Primordial genetic slurp.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
A la prochaine
Scammie,
Such poetry!
:D-->
'til the next time...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Dot: Yeah, your post explained a couple of things I'd wondered about.
1) I couldn't fathom how a man who taught such great bible...how his conscience could allow him to do such self serving, hurtful things to others. But if he really believed that his 'ministry' made it OK to touch like that...? Well, there you go. Sad. I'm married. My wife and I sleep in the same bed. Touching is good. I can touch her without preauthorization, but not anytime anywhere. Even with my own wife I have to use courtesy. Sheesh!
2) During my time in TWI, I probably visited HQ, Emporia, and Rome City several times each. Every so often (maybe 3 or 4 times total) I would be at one of those places and corps would be all over the place working or doing other things and my eyes would light on a woman's facial expression and it really seemed to me like she was pondering some tough secret that preoccupied her a lot. I naively thought she was in tune with the 'urgency of the times' or whatever TWI called it and that she was really locked in committed. Now I'm guessing she was recently aware of this inner circle and aghast as to how she got into this situation. This happened at least 3 times; same facial expression. Hell, Dot, one of those times it might have been YOU!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
johniam
Firstly you must remember the "written word" he had was not the same as that which we have. he only had the Old Testament to go by and he still contradicted the popular understanding of what it meant. The scribes and the pharisees thought they were experts on that "written word".
The absence of one thing being discussed and the absence of another is not a logical argument. Jesus said nothing about TWI or the internet or the theory of relativity either. But in the things you cite you don't need Jesus or the Bible to tell you that such things as you cite are socially unacceptable.
I will agree with you on TWI. Does God *really* decide what is natural by having it written down in a book or does he decide what is natural in elements of his creation? You cite an obscure text which is in any case mistranlsated as a QED.
I would like to refer you to:
http://www.truluck.com/html/the_bible_and_homosexuality.html
Where you can examine the so called "Bible Bullets" in more depth.
You also make an assumption that I have not already tried what you suggest - hell being in TWI of course I did and believe me it doesn't work. Could it *posibly* be because God is happy with me as I am, that is how he created me? You will no doubt disagree but that is my conclusion now.
And neither did the "super spiritual VPW or LCM neither nor anyone I knew in TWI except the ones I actually told. I always thought that IF it was that important somebody would have had the necessary revelation.
At least you admit your prejudice. My argument is that the Bible can be used to back up loads of different prejudices including racial and sexual ones. It has been used to justify slavery, polygamy, mass murder, discrimination against women, war and many other things. It is just so easy to read things into the Bible that you already believe. It reminds me of Trollope's Barchester novels where Mrs Proudie, the Bishop's wife is always saying:
"the Bishop thinks, and I must say I agree with him" when what the Bishop thinks has never been clearly expressed.
Well of course. I don't hate people either for their views but I do believe it's important to challenge them.
:D-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Johniam,
Trefor's decided the Bible's just some book.
With that in mind, he's reveiwed the materials one uses to try
to invalidate its accuracy, its historical consistency. etc.
(In that one aspect, he and Mike are in agreement-the Bible's
an inferior tool, devoid of authority.)
I'm not going to make any claims about the accuracy of Trefor's
position-simply declare it. Since you are coming from the
opposite position, you're using a reference book Trefor does
not consider canonical. Therefore, if you feel the need to
continue this subject, you will need to invoke other sources-
psychology, biology, sociology, etc.
Personally, I think there's no chance at all either of you will
change your position, but hey, you post what you want to post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Wordwolf
I am not sure that I have ever said that the Bible is just "some book" nor even how it puts me in agreement with Mike. What I have queried was how it is read and used and how it is untreated as some unchanging unquestionable authority that has an answer for everything if you read it carefully enough.
Hell, I LOVE the Bible, I just don't like the way it is used.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Oh.
Johniam,
where appropriate,
scratch out what I said and fill in what Trefor just said.
Hey, I posted what I THOUGHT was Trefor's position.
Sounded to me like he was saying it had no authority.
Ok, people, nothing to see here....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
zix, your comments here do seem arrogant
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Ex: She asked, I answered. What business is it of yours now?
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
sorry i thought this was an open forum now
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Look, I don't want to get into this again with either of you. I already apologized to you both for my error on the other page, and there's too much vital information on this thread. It doesn't need to turn into yet another bitchfest. You want to have a go at me? Be my guest. But why not be courteous and start another thread, at least?
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
and the preacher said "can't we all just get along?"
and the congregation said "amen"
ya know... for a long time now I've thought that religion really does cause a lot of prejudice and hate in the world...
I don't know if the thought started in my mind the first time I heard "Imagine" or at some other time, but...
When I read some of the posts back and forth here, particularly between Trefor and Johniam, I want to ask myself and Johniam the question: is there any other reason that you are "prejudiced" about homosexuality other than your religious beliefs? ...I'd hate to think that I might miss a chance to meet and know a great individual (Trefor or others), or be shortchanged on the relationship just because of what religion told me...
... confusion will be my epitath...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I have seen a lot of spiritualy sound thoughts and ideas displayed by Trefor .... much more so than some of those who brandish the label *christian* on this board.....
So you have a guy that exhibits many fruit of the spirit but hasn`t got the proper *label* ...and you have guys who claim to be the *spiritual* ones who enjoy rending and tearing up anyone that doesn`t agree with their particular formula........
Who`s really behaving in a Godly manner? ..... Who`s really in the right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Trefor: That website is ridiculous. First of all, the bible DOES mention sexual orientation. Gen. 1:27 So God created them in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. There they are: male and female. Nothing about homo, hetero, trans, or bisexual. I'm not "heterosexual", I'm MALE. THAT is my sexual orientation. Secondly, if you can throw Romans 1 out of the bible, I can throw John 3:16 out, too. Either it's God's word or it's man's word. I believe it's God's word.
Tom S: There's a difference between religion and God. Namely, one is man made, one is not. Religion is all man made, but it's what we call any attempt to know God. Some religion succeeds, some doesn't. As for "Imagine", that song is my personal poster child for socialist hypocrisy. You've no doubt seen the video where he's playing the song while Yoko is opening the blinds letting in light symbolizing that the words to the song are 'light of understanding'. Isn't there a scripture about those that call darkness light and light darkness?
So Lennon's playing this song and he sings...imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can. Well gee John, maybe it would be easier for me to imagine no possessions if I didn't have to see you playing an expensive piano, wearing expensive clothes, using expensive recording equipment, in an expensively furnished room, in an expensive building, located on expensive land, whew! Then, MAYBE I could imagine no possessions.
As for Trefor, he is no different than anyone else here. There is a poster here who calls himself MrPMosh. He will tell you that there is no God and that religion is for those who cannot deal with reality. I don't agree with that any more than I agree with Trefor, but I'll read his posts. Recently he posted on two threads I posted on with some info I was happy to get. I can learn something from anyone. Sure, it's nice to have posters you feel you connect with, but it's OK to have diversity, too. This forum is intriguing; we do interpersonally relate, yet we don't bear the burden of being personally present with each other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Joniam
While I read your post I was thinking I bet he saw me. IT was so HEAVY to carry around....
I wonder if it was me. Or one of my "enlightened" friends. Then, I read the line where you said IT COULD BE YOU!!!
Funny, I had a dear guy friend in the 13th corps. He was so cute he looked like Rob Lowe.
We were very close friends. He was hit on by some of the "inner circle" girls. One girl unbuttoned her blouse and told him she wanted to bless him; a MOG. He buttoned her blouse back up and declined the offer.
He was SO good looking he had women hit on him out in the world all the time - bars, bowling alley's etc. IT was a turn-off. He liked women who were not loose, who were confident and intelligent. After this happened, to him a couple times, it was weighing on him heavily and he was praying while sitting under a tree. Someone reported him for "not smiling".
These people who were sold out to the inner circle walked around with plastered smiles and ready genitals/taila. They were "leadership material".
My great-looking, smart, unwilling to screw around and use women friend, who was ONLY there because he LOVED GOD, was thrown out because he did not have the right attitude. I bet one of MOGGIE'S playthings reported him.
You are correct even in marriage there is appropriate/courteous touching.
Life is too short for bad coffee!
Dot Matrix
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.