First off, I don't care about the hearsay. TWI never taught the fetus was "a little parasite."
Did I say where I heard that? NO. I'm not about to tell you where I heard it either.
I never had an abortion.
You jumped to your own set of conclusions there WTH.
Use that ball of jelly inside that storm trooper helmet of your's and try, just try, to THINK for a moment. I heard this and I thought it was telling of the mental roads that some were able to follow by logic following TWI's premise. The person who said it wasn't a leader, per se.
It isn`t hear say when I heard it first hand...to bad so sad that my experience doesn`t jive with what you would like to believe wth.
The people that told me that an abortion was required ...that told me all of the things I listed above...INCLUDING the teaching about the cells.....were placed on the bot that year...is that high enough up the food chain to gualify???
I`d say that if the bot`s were teaching it...that kind of sets the standard of what is officially taught.
Course...unless you were a woman that was pregnant and in the corpes or wow program you never heard this particular little gem.
Odd, because I heard it straight from the horses foot himself, the bad Rev. LCM.
I think you got censored, Abi. Next time, you might try "straight from the wrong end of the horse."
But I'll second that.. I also heard loy rant about it. What a nimrod.. two verses out of the bible.. the one in exodus, and the one in the gospels calling Jesus a holy "thing"..
he stretched the bible so far out of context, it looked like a Sumo wrestler's corset..
I also have a vague recollection of VPW teaching on Luke1.35( the section of scripture that refers to Jesus as a "thing") and rationalizing the usage of the word "thing" by saying he, Jesus, was technically a *thing* because he had not yet taken his first breath. I wish I could remember where VP taught this but it's been too long ago.
Part of the emphasis of that particular teaching was that The Word never contradicts itself.
It seems that there were people who had said this passage was an example of contradiction because it used the term*thing* rather than refer to Jesus as a child.
As always, there were subliminal implications to much of what Wierwille taught.
"Hey!, That's not what I taught. That's what you heard me say and give your own meaning to."
(Sounds like a cop-out/loophole to me.)
When vpw did that- saying that Jesus was a "thing" based on Luke 1:35-
he was indulging in an activity he did quite a bit when he was teaching.
For all his speeches about "I wish you could see it in the original", he relied EXCLUSIVELY on the King James English
often to support his positions.
In Genesis 3, vpw made a LOT of fuss about the word "replenish" and what it means in
"be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth",
but that word is "FILL" in the Hebrew, not the "replenish" of the KJV.
Most modern Bibles render that "holy thing" as "holy one."
That's because it's "holy one" in the Greek. In fact, it's the same word that's in plural form as "saints"
in the Epistles.
The "thing" position was based entirely on a MISTRANSLATION that was easy to correct by just opening an interlinear
and looking it over.
For the sake of clarification, I am not trying to proclaim a stance on the subject of abortion being right or being wrong.
My opinion is a moot point.
What I am trying to do is establish that Wierwille DID take a stance on how he regarded the subject.
We all know, I believe, that a stance taken by Wirwille on any subject carried a tremendous amount of weight.
(ie: "This is the stance that "DR" has taken so that's how I will stand also because he is obviously MUCH more in touch with what is spiritually correct,")
(I looked for a "smiley" hurling chunks but couldn't find one.)
Of course,
some people weren't in the room when he taught that.
Some of those people will say "I wasn't there for that,"
and others will say "Since I didn't hear him say that, he never taught it, and now I will insult you."
That's the level to which they can rise, so they do.
Not so Rascal. LCM taught it as well. I don't recall now if it was the Believers Family Class or Advanced Class now, but he taught it.
BTW, that was me earlier, I posed under Sushi's name by accident.
And of course, since some people weren't there when lcm said it.....
I hate to admit this, but I do tend to take Wierwille's side on this, but that is not fully conclusive. I'd like to study the premature birth side of that translation and read corresponding verses around it. It is interesting. Maybe then I can be fully persuaded on one of those translations.
Apparently Wierwille was not the first to think of that translation in that manner.
I hate to admit this, but I do tend to take Wierwille's side on this, but that is not fully conclusive. I'd like to study the premature birth side of that translation and read corresponding verses around it. It is interesting. Maybe then I can be fully persuaded on one of those translations.
Apparently Wierwille was not the first to think of that translation in that manner.
Eagle, search around the net and you'll find many Rabbi's and Jewish teaching that agree with twi teaching on this point; i.e., until the fetus can live outside the womb, on its own, it is not thought of as a living soul or human being. That's probably why Rabbi's do not ban abortions -- (unless or until the fetus is viable, around third trimester). But that piece by Dave Craley was excellent too; teaching that the fetus is "the potential" to life and not life itself.
Eagle, search around the net and you'll find many Rabbi's and Jewish teaching that agree with twi teaching on this point; i.e., until the fetus can live outside the womb, on its own, it is not thought of as a living soul or human being. That's probably why Rabbi's do not ban abortions -- (unless or until the fetus is viable, around third trimester). But that piece by Dave Craley was excellent too; teaching that the fetus is "the potential" to life and not life itself.
Oldies, while you are correct that Jewish theology in general teachesthe same and does not BAN abortions, abortions are not in any way encouraged either, unless it is to save the life of the mother.
This could turn into an emotional hornet's nest on abortion. And I suppose it would be my fault for bringing this thread back up. Discussion about whether or nto abortion is murder (a word which has been used), the taking of a life (to tone down the language) or simply a medical procedure for the benefit of the patient, can get pretty, well, animated.
We can certainly fault TWI for coercing abortion without believing that the fetus is a human life. But, if it IS mrder inside TWI, that life is no less precious outside the TWI realm.
I keep wondering how God felt when We brokenly complied with something that we believed so wrong...submitted ourselves to the most brutal of treatment...required to turn our backs on our fallen brethren....turned out family members in need...even throwing children to the streets...
How did God feel watching us suffer because HIS name was invoked??
Do you think he was applauding? Do you think that he even cared?? Was he there crying with us at the betrayal?
Oldies, while you are correct that Jewish theology in general teachesthe same and does not BAN abortions, abortions are not in any way encouraged either, unless it is to save the life of the mother.
I don't know. Doesn't make sense. If a woman were to go to her Rabbi and ask his blessing and support to have an abortion, the Rabbi would say "sorry, nope, you are doing wrong if you get an abortion. God wants you to have the child regardless and be a mother." Is that what the Rabbi would say? Somehow I don't think so.
Let me step back from my previous comment for a moment. Where in Jewish law does it state that abortion is prohibited unless the life of the mother is at stake?
I keep wondering how God felt when We brokenly complied with something that we believed so wrong...submitted ourselves to the most brutal of treatment...required to turn our backs on our fallen brethren....turned out family members in need...even throwing children to the streets...
How did God feel watching us suffer because HIS name was invoked??
Do you think he was applauding? Do you think that he even cared?? Was he there crying with us at the betrayal?
My dear Rascal, God grieves and cries and feels deep pain and anger for the betrayals. This is a perfect example of taking the Lord's name in vain. God does not abandon us but we sometimes are tricked, beguiled and bewitched into ignoring Him. But He is still there.
God will repay. And you, gentle one will be reunited with the one you lost.
Let me step back from my previous comment for a moment. Where in Jewish law does it state that abortion is prohibited unless the life of the mother is at stake?
Where does it say in Jewish law that abortion is permitted? Same question in reverse.
Jewish law is based primarily on the O.T. From that Rabbi's for centuries upon centuries back have debated the meanings and applications of the laws of the O.T. Those debates are called Midrash. It is within the Midrash that you will find that abortion is generally only permitted to save the life of the mother.
This is based upon OT scriptures which you are aware of via VPW/TWI and the commandment that we be fruitful and multiply. The reasoning is that having children is a Mitzvah. A fetus is a life, but not a SOUL life, until it takes it's first breath. That potential soul life, once conceived, should be preserved and brought into fruition whenever possible. However, because a couple can go on to conceive again provided the mother lives, but cannot conceive again once the SOUL life of the mother is lost, abortion is acceptable to save her life.
Where does it say in Jewish law that abortion is permitted? Same question in reverse.
I don't think it has to say it is permitted for it to be permitted. In other words, everything is permitted unless it is prohibited. On the other hand, if it says it is prohibited, it definitely is not permitted. That is the very definition of what the law is. (don't do this, don't do that, etc.)
I don't think it has to say it is permitted for it to be permitted. In other words, everything is permitted unless it is prohibited. On the other hand, if it says it is prohibited, it definitely is not permitted. That is the very definition of what the law is. (don't do this, don't do that, etc.)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
62
61
55
20
Popular Days
Jun 10
71
Jun 7
52
Jun 9
41
Aug 15
32
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 62 posts
oldiesman 61 posts
mj412 55 posts
Ham 20 posts
Popular Days
Jun 10 2004
71 posts
Jun 7 2004
52 posts
Jun 9 2004
41 posts
Aug 15 2007
32 posts
WhiteDove
Actually he was wrong as well We were not "the way" we were followers of THE WAY did he never read his promo sheet.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Did I say where I heard that? NO. I'm not about to tell you where I heard it either.
I never had an abortion.
You jumped to your own set of conclusions there WTH.
Use that ball of jelly inside that storm trooper helmet of your's and try, just try, to THINK for a moment. I heard this and I thought it was telling of the mental roads that some were able to follow by logic following TWI's premise. The person who said it wasn't a leader, per se.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
It isn`t hear say when I heard it first hand...to bad so sad that my experience doesn`t jive with what you would like to believe wth.
The people that told me that an abortion was required ...that told me all of the things I listed above...INCLUDING the teaching about the cells.....were placed on the bot that year...is that high enough up the food chain to gualify???
I`d say that if the bot`s were teaching it...that kind of sets the standard of what is officially taught.
Course...unless you were a woman that was pregnant and in the corpes or wow program you never heard this particular little gem.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Not so Rascal. LCM taught it as well. I don't recall now if it was the Believers Family Class or Advanced Class now, but he taught it.
BTW, that was me earlier, I posed under Sushi's name by accident.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yes, W.D., I see your point.
Jesus Christ said " I am THE WAY----" and we were followers of Jesus Christ who is THE WAY.( or so we thought ourselves to be)
However, in the context in which this was spoken,(did I mention I was there?) *The Way* being referred to was *The Way International*.
"We are affiliated with The Way(International)."-----my words
"We are not affiliated with The Way (International), we are The Way(International).---- his words
Whether or not he read his "promo sheet" is a matter of conjecture and irrelevant to the point at hand.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think you got censored, Abi. Next time, you might try "straight from the wrong end of the horse."
But I'll second that.. I also heard loy rant about it. What a nimrod.. two verses out of the bible.. the one in exodus, and the one in the gospels calling Jesus a holy "thing"..
he stretched the bible so far out of context, it looked like a Sumo wrestler's corset..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
When vpw did that- saying that Jesus was a "thing" based on Luke 1:35-
he was indulging in an activity he did quite a bit when he was teaching.
For all his speeches about "I wish you could see it in the original", he relied EXCLUSIVELY on the King James English
often to support his positions.
In Genesis 3, vpw made a LOT of fuss about the word "replenish" and what it means in
"be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth",
but that word is "FILL" in the Hebrew, not the "replenish" of the KJV.
Most modern Bibles render that "holy thing" as "holy one."
That's because it's "holy one" in the Greek. In fact, it's the same word that's in plural form as "saints"
in the Epistles.
The "thing" position was based entirely on a MISTRANSLATION that was easy to correct by just opening an interlinear
and looking it over.
Of course,
some people weren't in the room when he taught that.
Some of those people will say "I wasn't there for that,"
and others will say "Since I didn't hear him say that, he never taught it, and now I will insult you."
That's the level to which they can rise, so they do.
And of course, since some people weren't there when lcm said it.....
etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
I hate to admit this, but I do tend to take Wierwille's side on this, but that is not fully conclusive. I'd like to study the premature birth side of that translation and read corresponding verses around it. It is interesting. Maybe then I can be fully persuaded on one of those translations.
Apparently Wierwille was not the first to think of that translation in that manner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
the scary pig has a great point
look at # 8 she is one hot scary pig.
# 8 rules
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Eagle, to me the point isn`t was it right or was it wrong...but the fact that abortion was presented as that which GOD required of me.
I could go against a lot of things...but I was afraid of going against God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Eagle, search around the net and you'll find many Rabbi's and Jewish teaching that agree with twi teaching on this point; i.e., until the fetus can live outside the womb, on its own, it is not thought of as a living soul or human being. That's probably why Rabbi's do not ban abortions -- (unless or until the fetus is viable, around third trimester). But that piece by Dave Craley was excellent too; teaching that the fetus is "the potential" to life and not life itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Oldies, while you are correct that Jewish theology in general teachesthe same and does not BAN abortions, abortions are not in any way encouraged either, unless it is to save the life of the mother.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
This could turn into an emotional hornet's nest on abortion. And I suppose it would be my fault for bringing this thread back up. Discussion about whether or nto abortion is murder (a word which has been used), the taking of a life (to tone down the language) or simply a medical procedure for the benefit of the patient, can get pretty, well, animated.
We can certainly fault TWI for coercing abortion without believing that the fetus is a human life. But, if it IS mrder inside TWI, that life is no less precious outside the TWI realm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Yep.. that is reasonable.. and if I may add..
NOT the life STYLE of the mother, or to save the reputation or life style of the married mogster who fathered the child.. not by his own wife..
nor to save a damned "ministry"..
the same ethics that they invoke regarding abortion.. just a little piece of flesh.. ok to nip it off..
are the same they invoke for full grown adults. You are expendable.
Look what they did to Dotsy and others..
a little financial pressure.. a little inconvenience..
I think twi reflects corporate america at it's worst.
It just makes me wonder.. how many have been sacrificed for the illusion of riches..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
How many have been sacrificed indeed :(
All in the name of God.
I keep wondering how God felt when We brokenly complied with something that we believed so wrong...submitted ourselves to the most brutal of treatment...required to turn our backs on our fallen brethren....turned out family members in need...even throwing children to the streets...
How did God feel watching us suffer because HIS name was invoked??
Do you think he was applauding? Do you think that he even cared?? Was he there crying with us at the betrayal?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I don't know. Doesn't make sense. If a woman were to go to her Rabbi and ask his blessing and support to have an abortion, the Rabbi would say "sorry, nope, you are doing wrong if you get an abortion. God wants you to have the child regardless and be a mother." Is that what the Rabbi would say? Somehow I don't think so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I wonder if God grieves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Rascal, all I can say is I hope so..
If God is God.. he can't be any less than some of us..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Abigail,
Let me step back from my previous comment for a moment. Where in Jewish law does it state that abortion is prohibited unless the life of the mother is at stake?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
My dear Rascal, God grieves and cries and feels deep pain and anger for the betrayals. This is a perfect example of taking the Lord's name in vain. God does not abandon us but we sometimes are tricked, beguiled and bewitched into ignoring Him. But He is still there.
God will repay. And you, gentle one will be reunited with the one you lost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Where does it say in Jewish law that abortion is permitted? Same question in reverse.
Jewish law is based primarily on the O.T. From that Rabbi's for centuries upon centuries back have debated the meanings and applications of the laws of the O.T. Those debates are called Midrash. It is within the Midrash that you will find that abortion is generally only permitted to save the life of the mother.
This is based upon OT scriptures which you are aware of via VPW/TWI and the commandment that we be fruitful and multiply. The reasoning is that having children is a Mitzvah. A fetus is a life, but not a SOUL life, until it takes it's first breath. That potential soul life, once conceived, should be preserved and brought into fruition whenever possible. However, because a couple can go on to conceive again provided the mother lives, but cannot conceive again once the SOUL life of the mother is lost, abortion is acceptable to save her life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I don't think it has to say it is permitted for it to be permitted. In other words, everything is permitted unless it is prohibited. On the other hand, if it says it is prohibited, it definitely is not permitted. That is the very definition of what the law is. (don't do this, don't do that, etc.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Oldies.. doesn't that make you dizzy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
:huh: :blink:
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.