quote:I distinctly remember being taught that references to adultry in the Bible referred to idolatry and infidelity to God and "the ministry that taught you the Word". It was very clear that TWI did not consider adultry talked about as being wrong in the Bible.
I beg to differ with you, it wasn't clear. In fact, it was dark and murky. Which was why this whole topic was kept quiet.
I think EVERYBODY knew adultery is and was wrong we didn't need twi to tell us so. We learned early on before twi, from our parents, society, etc. The fact that twi didn't teach it was wrong, shouldn't have been, and shouldn't be now, used as an EXCUSE for people's actions.
Otherwise, then let Dr. Wierwille off the hook for LITERALLY AND SINCERELY believing that adultery was only spiritual, and there was nothing wrong with the illicit sexual contact.
Think about that for a moment. What if he really believed that? Would you call him an evil person? I wouldn't. But some of you have no hesitation to call him evil regardless, because you know, then and now, that the stuff you heard from him about adultery being ok was baloney. You're so sharp concerning Wierwille's evil words and deeds, but you can't see that other people are capable of thinking and doing evil also?
The women who said NO! deserve a round of applause.
Oldies, so do the women who complied... no matter what you say, they were taken advantage of... yes, whether they knew it or not...
YOU HAVE NO CLUE AND YOU CONTINUE TO BUILD ON THAT PERCEPTION WITH EVERY POST.
If nothing went wrong, or if nothing was that bad... why don't you go back to them? It's a good question... I hear they're in need of good defenders...
quote: Would you call him an evil person? I wouldn't.
Dude, you wouldn't call him an evil person no matter how screwed up his actions and teachings were. You, like Smikeol does with PFAL, would endeavor to make excuses for and whitewash his rep with such blind loyalty that its not even funny.
And you think that God approves of this? If so, you can have him, 'cause I sure as hell have no use for that kind of religion. At all!
Garth, try reading what I wrote in the supposal context I wrote it.
quote:If nothing went wrong, or if nothing was that bad... why don't you go back to them? It's a good question... I hear they're in need of good defenders...
Tom, I never suggested either viewpoint, and don't defend anyone's actions when they're wrong. The difference between your thinking and mine seems to be, that you give some folks a free pass and complete exoneration ... while fully condemning others. i simply don't agree with that viewpoint.
quote:I think EVERYBODY knew adultery is and was wrong we didn't need twi to tell us so. We learned early on before twi, from our parents, society, etc. The fact that twi didn't teach it was wrong, shouldn't have been, and shouldn't be now, used as an EXCUSE for people's actions.
Otherwise, then let Dr. Wierwille off the hook for LITERALLY AND SINCERELY believing that adultery was only spiritual, and there was nothing wrong with the illicit sexual contact.
Dude, do you read what you're saying? See, by your own words "society, our parents, etc" taught that it was wrong... VEEPEE is the one that came up with the 'it is not wrong' VEEPEE is the one who 'muddied' it...
where do YOU think the break with tradition of society and religion came from? WHO do you think caused that disparity? it was VEEPEE dude, and all the folks in "the club" benefitted from it... even your beloved, sainted DW... (although I'll give him the latitude of benefit of also 'buying into' what the MOG said)
Let him off? Are you nuts? You cannot apply the same logic to the predator as the prey. Entirely illogical.
quote:Please show me from the bible your standard for living and judging.
Why? Obviously it's different from yours. Mine includes NOT BLAMING the victim. Mine doesn't (in this case) include "they were wrong, but some of the blame lies with the women, too"
The point is it does not make one whit of difference if they were willing or unwilling, abused or prostitutes. The point is it was FLAT OUT WRONG for "men of God" to do these things.
Why do YOU insist on NEEDING to also blame the women? What is your point?
And it's not a question of predator 'sins', prey 'sins'... that's the point you miss in it's entirety...
The predator doesn't 'sin'... the predator 'takes' or 'attacks' or 'devours'... the prey is the object of the aggression.
OM, you repeatedly demonstrate your inability and unwillingness to get the point.
You keep saying "Not all of the women involved are without sin". We all get that. We aren't stupid.
Read the next line very carefully - THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.
I would attempt to use an analogy here, but abstract thinking appears to be well beyond your capabilities.
Oh, I'll use it anyway, for the benefit of those that can understand.
Imagine that there was a thread with the topic "Plants imported from other continents can be very problematic because they completely take over whereever they are introduced, choking out the native flora."
Along comes omPhil, squeaking "but the people that brought the plants are bad too!" "but the people that brought the plants are bad too!" "but the people that brought the plants are bad too!" "but the people that brought the plants are bad too!" "but the people that brought the plants are bad too!" "but the people that brought the plants are bad too!".
How does that change the fact that the plants are choking out the native flora?
The topic of this thread is SADISTIC LEADER..... Whether any woman involved was right or wrong is COMPLETELY IMMATERIAL. How does that change the actions of the sadistic leader....?
quote:The topic of this thread is SADISTIC LEADER..... Whether any woman involved was right or wrong is COMPLETELY IMMATERIAL. How does that change the actions of the sadistic leader....?
Sadistic leadership is a conclusion of this thread, based upon a premise I don't agree with, which is making twi leadership akin to armed military, who have absolute authority over unarmed prisoners. It's excessive overkill. You can try to make a connection, a similarity ... but it just doesn't jive and you can't expect some folks to swallow it cause the comparisons are too dissimilar.
There is a Public Trust that is given exclusivly to those who serve the public, professionals in positions of caretaking our Society. Those professional are Phisicans..Politicans..School Teachers..Therapist..Clergy..Nurses..Nursing home staff..Pschyitrist..Residential staff..Lawyers..Law Enforcement..Social Workers... the list goes on.
When that trust has been violated or abused for personal gain, then public trust can not be.
There is a moral obligation that these professionals are subject to regardless of the come ons from there clients. It is a Social Trust and expectation. These professionals are held to a higher standard. WHY? WHY? WHY?
1. Because of the position and power they are granted by or Society. In that... to do no harm.
2. Because of the vulnerablity of the individuals that seek there sevices.
Now in the case of Clergy, the expectations are the same although the Legal consquences are not. IF a Therapist abused his/her powers with a client, there is a legal recourse. For Clergy there is not. Only a inhouse discipline except in the case of rape.
When the repitition of sexual misconduct occures, with no legal recourse,you have sexual anarchy. Although the terrany is not violent in nature, it does hold captive the minds of the vulnerable in many seductve ways. READ: "The Betrayal Bond" Breaking Free of Exploitive Relationships. by Patrick Carnes.
Since whe're not focusing on the Psychological views, but Biblical... The Bible really has no relevance here. We know what the bible say abot Adultry. We also know what Accountability God holds to MOG. What we are not doing is looking into the mental processes of both victim and perpatrator.
I know of one individual who more than likly seduced the MOG. The other came back shame faced and wanting to crawl out of her skin. WHY? WHY? WHY? What was going on the Pschy of these individual to over ride better judgement? Both men and women a like. I posted my mental processing in another post.
The Black and White interpretaion of the Bible does nothing to help the individuals involved. The MOG or these women. What does help is supportive dose of understanding and therapy to change the behaviors and perseption of self.
well... That is my opinion... for what it is worth.
from a christian ethics pamphlet. i have to find the link-
quote:Betrayal of Power Trust. Every act of clergy indiscretion also is a betrayal of trust in the use of power. One writer asserts the problem “is less about sex and more about power. It has less to do with sexual misconduct such as adultery, and more to do with exploiting one’s professional position for personal gain.”[xvii] Only when the power aspect is accepted, writes Pamela Cooper-White, can the church stop engaging in denial and collusion and become a place of authentic power and healing.[xviii]
Every minister is a symbol of religious authority. By virtue of the pastoral office, the minister interprets religious truth, the meaning of life, the way of faith, and even the reality of God. Add to that status the power of the pastor’s presence through ministry, and you realize the special influence a minister holds among his congregants.
For example, in pastoral counseling a female member brings into the relationship her intimate, wounded, vulnerable, or undeveloped parts, which the minister holds in trust. Often the problems are closely tied to her sexuality. Whatever the cause of her wounds, she comes to her minister seeking acceptance, self-worth, and emotional support. Ultimately she seeks healing.
A special bond of trust develops between her and her pastor, which may lead to more openness and more vulnerability. Peter Rutter notes that even a woman with a firm sense of sexual boundaries often stops guarding them in order that her inner self may be seen and known by this healer.[xix] Motivated by his own needs, a minister easily may move this relationship into the sexual sphere, seeking his own “healing.” Whatever the motive, through sexual contact a pastoral counselor has exploited a congregant’s vulnerability, violated her trust, and met his own needs at her expense. Lebacqz and Barton conclude, this sexual contact “revictimizes her, repeating patterns from her past, and keeps her from recognizing and claiming her own strength apart from a man.”[xx]
Remember that section in the Gospels where Jesus gets on the Pharisees case about training their young proselytes wrong teaching and practice, and "making them twice-fold children of hell than you are yourselves"? (Undoubtedly a figure of speech there as referring to being a 'twice-fold child of hell', because how can one be literaly a child of hell twice over?)
Notice that he puts the responsibility *squarely* on the Pharisees*. He only chews *them* out. ... Why not the proselytes as well?
Also notice in the Pualine epistles where FAR more burden and responsibility is placed on the leaders for teaching and acting right than the followers.
As Steve and others noted time and again here (only to fall upon your deaf ears and **thick** skull), nobody is saying that the women are totally w/o responsibility in these cases. Many of them have, and still do, feel guilty, foolish, and like crap because of their experience. But, under the thin veil of "they all are responsible, and not just leadership (including VPW)", you still treat lightly and with a dismissive attitude all those who, even if they do share responsibility, have nevertheless still suffered abuse under VPW and other sadistic leadership.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: VPW and TWI and all that they have offered have had their chance at doing good. They have f***ed it up totally. The TWItanic has sunk. ... Time to move on, and let VPW's already tarnished, nay, **trashed** reputation DIE! He isn't worth anywhere near the level of defense and honor that you and Smikeol have brown-nosed him with.
Christmas! If THAT is the best that you think God can do?? ..... -->
"Oh for the love of Pete", from the Greek word "petros" meaning little rock, mistakenly taken for the Rock the church was built on, much as "Christmas" comes from Christ and Mass, which came about when the birth of Christ became to be celebrated during the winter solstice, thus the expressions "Christmas" and "for the love of Pete" are interchangeble as both are extrapolations of the religious misuse of the original meanings as they were in the original text.
"For Pete's Sake" from the Greek word petros meaning little rock and sake, Japanese word for strong drink, as "For Pete's Sake" is oftn uttered in moments of stress or frustration, thereby often inducing the imbibing of strong drink shortly after utterance of said expression.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
27
37
51
28
Popular Days
May 14
43
May 19
40
May 17
39
May 13
38
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 27 posts
Raf 37 posts
oldiesman 51 posts
Tom Strange 28 posts
Popular Days
May 14 2004
43 posts
May 19 2004
40 posts
May 17 2004
39 posts
May 13 2004
38 posts
WaywardWayfer
Welcome NPLH and HaR'in!
Put your next cup of coffee on my tab.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think EVERYBODY knew adultery is and was wrong we didn't need twi to tell us so. We learned early on before twi, from our parents, society, etc. The fact that twi didn't teach it was wrong, shouldn't have been, and shouldn't be now, used as an EXCUSE for people's actions.
Otherwise, then let Dr. Wierwille off the hook for LITERALLY AND SINCERELY believing that adultery was only spiritual, and there was nothing wrong with the illicit sexual contact.
Think about that for a moment. What if he really believed that? Would you call him an evil person? I wouldn't. But some of you have no hesitation to call him evil regardless, because you know, then and now, that the stuff you heard from him about adultery being ok was baloney. You're so sharp concerning Wierwille's evil words and deeds, but you can't see that other people are capable of thinking and doing evil also?
The women who said NO! deserve a round of applause.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Excellent post wayward.
Oldies, so do the women who complied... no matter what you say, they were taken advantage of... yes, whether they knew it or not...
YOU HAVE NO CLUE AND YOU CONTINUE TO BUILD ON THAT PERCEPTION WITH EVERY POST.
If nothing went wrong, or if nothing was that bad... why don't you go back to them? It's a good question... I hear they're in need of good defenders...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Dude, you wouldn't call him an evil person no matter how screwed up his actions and teachings were. You, like Smikeol does with PFAL, would endeavor to make excuses for and whitewash his rep with such blind loyalty that its not even funny.
And you think that God approves of this? If so, you can have him, 'cause I sure as hell have no use for that kind of religion. At all!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Garth, try reading what I wrote in the supposal context I wrote it.
Tom, I never suggested either viewpoint, and don't defend anyone's actions when they're wrong. The difference between your thinking and mine seems to be, that you give some folks a free pass and complete exoneration ... while fully condemning others. i simply don't agree with that viewpoint.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
OM said (so we get the context correct):
Dude, do you read what you're saying? See, by your own words "society, our parents, etc" taught that it was wrong... VEEPEE is the one that came up with the 'it is not wrong' VEEPEE is the one who 'muddied' it...where do YOU think the break with tradition of society and religion came from? WHO do you think caused that disparity? it was VEEPEE dude, and all the folks in "the club" benefitted from it... even your beloved, sainted DW... (although I'll give him the latitude of benefit of also 'buying into' what the MOG said)
Let him off? Are you nuts? You cannot apply the same logic to the predator as the prey. Entirely illogical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
When the predator sins, it's called sin.
When the prey sins, it's called .....
hey whatever, it doesn't matter, who cares, let's just focus on the predators sins.
Please show me from the bible your standard for living and judging.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
The point is it does not make one whit of difference if they were willing or unwilling, abused or prostitutes. The point is it was FLAT OUT WRONG for "men of God" to do these things.
Why do YOU insist on NEEDING to also blame the women? What is your point?
And it's not a question of predator 'sins', prey 'sins'... that's the point you miss in it's entirety...
The predator doesn't 'sin'... the predator 'takes' or 'attacks' or 'devours'... the prey is the object of the aggression.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
OM, you repeatedly demonstrate your inability and unwillingness to get the point.
You keep saying "Not all of the women involved are without sin". We all get that. We aren't stupid.
Read the next line very carefully - THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.
I would attempt to use an analogy here, but abstract thinking appears to be well beyond your capabilities.
Oh, I'll use it anyway, for the benefit of those that can understand.
Imagine that there was a thread with the topic "Plants imported from other continents can be very problematic because they completely take over whereever they are introduced, choking out the native flora."
Along comes omPhil, squeaking "but the people that brought the plants are bad too!" "but the people that brought the plants are bad too!" "but the people that brought the plants are bad too!" "but the people that brought the plants are bad too!" "but the people that brought the plants are bad too!" "but the people that brought the plants are bad too!".
How does that change the fact that the plants are choking out the native flora?
The topic of this thread is SADISTIC LEADER..... Whether any woman involved was right or wrong is COMPLETELY IMMATERIAL. How does that change the actions of the sadistic leader....?
( * )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
Cause it would stain his little idol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Sadistic leadership is a conclusion of this thread, based upon a premise I don't agree with, which is making twi leadership akin to armed military, who have absolute authority over unarmed prisoners. It's excessive overkill. You can try to make a connection, a similarity ... but it just doesn't jive and you can't expect some folks to swallow it cause the comparisons are too dissimilar.
(*) yourself
Link to comment
Share on other sites
imbus
There is a Public Trust that is given exclusivly to those who serve the public, professionals in positions of caretaking our Society. Those professional are Phisicans..Politicans..School Teachers..Therapist..Clergy..Nurses..Nursing home staff..Pschyitrist..Residential staff..Lawyers..Law Enforcement..Social Workers... the list goes on.
When that trust has been violated or abused for personal gain, then public trust can not be.
There is a moral obligation that these professionals are subject to regardless of the come ons from there clients. It is a Social Trust and expectation. These professionals are held to a higher standard. WHY? WHY? WHY?
1. Because of the position and power they are granted by or Society. In that... to do no harm.
2. Because of the vulnerablity of the individuals that seek there sevices.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now in the case of Clergy, the expectations are the same although the Legal consquences are not. IF a Therapist abused his/her powers with a client, there is a legal recourse. For Clergy there is not. Only a inhouse discipline except in the case of rape.
When the repitition of sexual misconduct occures, with no legal recourse,you have sexual anarchy. Although the terrany is not violent in nature, it does hold captive the minds of the vulnerable in many seductve ways. READ: "The Betrayal Bond" Breaking Free of Exploitive Relationships. by Patrick Carnes.
Since whe're not focusing on the Psychological views, but Biblical... The Bible really has no relevance here. We know what the bible say abot Adultry. We also know what Accountability God holds to MOG. What we are not doing is looking into the mental processes of both victim and perpatrator.
I know of one individual who more than likly seduced the MOG. The other came back shame faced and wanting to crawl out of her skin. WHY? WHY? WHY? What was going on the Pschy of these individual to over ride better judgement? Both men and women a like. I posted my mental processing in another post.
The Black and White interpretaion of the Bible does nothing to help the individuals involved. The MOG or these women. What does help is supportive dose of understanding and therapy to change the behaviors and perseption of self.
well... That is my opinion... for what it is worth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
from a christian ethics pamphlet. i have to find the link-
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oldies,
Remember that section in the Gospels where Jesus gets on the Pharisees case about training their young proselytes wrong teaching and practice, and "making them twice-fold children of hell than you are yourselves"? (Undoubtedly a figure of speech there as referring to being a 'twice-fold child of hell', because how can one be literaly a child of hell twice over?)
Notice that he puts the responsibility *squarely* on the Pharisees*. He only chews *them* out. ... Why not the proselytes as well?
Also notice in the Pualine epistles where FAR more burden and responsibility is placed on the leaders for teaching and acting right than the followers.
As Steve and others noted time and again here (only to fall upon your deaf ears and **thick** skull), nobody is saying that the women are totally w/o responsibility in these cases. Many of them have, and still do, feel guilty, foolish, and like crap because of their experience. But, under the thin veil of "they all are responsible, and not just leadership (including VPW)", you still treat lightly and with a dismissive attitude all those who, even if they do share responsibility, have nevertheless still suffered abuse under VPW and other sadistic leadership.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: VPW and TWI and all that they have offered have had their chance at doing good. They have f***ed it up totally. The TWItanic has sunk. ... Time to move on, and let VPW's already tarnished, nay, **trashed** reputation DIE! He isn't worth anywhere near the level of defense and honor that you and Smikeol have brown-nosed him with.
Christmas! If THAT is the best that you think God can do?? .....
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outandabout
You said Christmas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Garth,
Was that a literal according to usage? ;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outandabout
"Oh for the love of Pete", from the Greek word "petros" meaning little rock, mistakenly taken for the Rock the church was built on, much as "Christmas" comes from Christ and Mass, which came about when the birth of Christ became to be celebrated during the winter solstice, thus the expressions "Christmas" and "for the love of Pete" are interchangeble as both are extrapolations of the religious misuse of the original meanings as they were in the original text.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
Can I get a "literal" for my favorite saying?
"FOR PETE'S SAKE!!!!"
Thanks in advance
;)-->
Radar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
imbus
Ex,
Powerful...simply powerful. THANK YOU!
:D-->
Garth ,
Well said! Good stuff and logic!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outandabout
"For Pete's Sake" from the Greek word petros meaning little rock and sake, Japanese word for strong drink, as "For Pete's Sake" is oftn uttered in moments of stress or frustration, thereby often inducing the imbibing of strong drink shortly after utterance of said expression.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Out,
I'm impressed! You da man!
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outandabout
not a man, but thank you!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Out,
Oops! Sorry. :=|
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.