Raf, you mention this but don't seem to see any problem (or it doesn't much matter since it doesn't bother you and you don't mention it) of folks who obsess, rant, vent their relentless morbid cruelties against Victor Paul and the BOT. You even justify it with scripture (Jesus condemnation of the Pharisees), and pretty much ignore other scriptures that you don't or won't apply here (Eph. 4:32, principally. There are others.). Suit yourself. God forbid Johniam or me or anyone else spoil or momentarily pause people's everlasting finger-pointing rock throwing spittle spewing condemnation of Victor Paul and the BOT, with trivialities such as the sins of anyone else.
Sorry for distracting the Prevailing Mindset.
It's not that I see no problem with it, Oldiesman. It's that I can't stop it. It's been argued before: should Wierwille be forgiven. Should Martindale be forgiven? Should we pray for them? There's no consensus on this. I can't quote Eph 4:32 at people who may not necessarily accept Eph. as an authority. It does me no good; it does no one else any good.
And contrary to your accusation, I was not "justifying" Wierwille bashing with scripture. You asked me a question and I answered it. Rather disingenuous to turn around and accuse me of finger-pointing.
How would Jesus respond to this? That was your question. I'm not certain how he would respond to something like this, 20 years later. Jesus told his disciples to beware wolves in sheep's clothing, didn't he? (If he didn't, Paul did). How are you going to avoid "wolves" if you don't have the personal courage and honsety to identify them?
This isn't justification, and you haven't rebutted it.
And, by the way, it is a lie to say that I "don't" or "won't" apply those scriptures to this situation. I absolutely do. It is more correct to say I will not impose those scriptures on those who do not accept them as an authority.
When I speak to you, I include scriptural references because I know you accept scriptures as an authority. When you say the scripture instructs us to forgive, I agree with you. But when you imply or state outright that the scripture condemns the idea of "harping" on the misdeeds of leadership, I disagree, and I challenge you on a scriptural basis. Understanding the misdeeds of leadership helps Christians to identify and avoid such misdeeds in the future. You have no problem remembering that Jimmy Swaggart consorted with a prostitute, do you? You have no problem recalling the misdeeds of the Catholic Church, past (Inquisition) and present (pedophile and sex abuse), do you? Do you forgive those priests? Do you say, "well, they may have done some bad things, but they also teach God's Word every Sunday." No, because you know and understand a place for recognizing, understanding and condemning sin. I don't see you saying, "but how many of those abused teens knew having sex with a priest was wrong, but did it anyway?" You don't. And why not? Because it doesn't matter! It doesn't matter if a male hooker dropped to his knees in a confessional booth: you hold the priest to the standard of knowing what is and what is not proper behavior for a minister of God.
I hold Wierwille, Martindale and other TWI leadership accountable for knowing what is and what is not proper behavior for a minister of God. Whether their "partners" were willing or not, whether they were equally culpable or victims of manipulative "wolves," is a side issue, one you constantly exalt over the main issue. Suit yourself.
I'm sure there are some women who were equally culpable. I'm sure there are others who were not. For those who were not: why did they engage in this behavior? That's the subject of this thread. How did good people end up "servicing" men of God in defiance of clear scriptures on the subject? Because the scripture was muddied for them. Because God was muddied for them. And that muddying was done on purpose. By ministers. I have more contempt for Pharisees who lead people away from Christ than I do for the misled, for the abused, for the hurt. To the victims, I would say "Go and sin no more." To the Pharisees, I would say "you unimaginable hypocrites. How dare you pervert the Word of God for your own lusts!"
And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.
When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked [man] shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Again, When a righteous [man] doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous [man], that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.
Also: Ezekiel 33:8-9, Acts 20:31
Eli and his sons were punished for causing the people to sin and for not being proper leadership. Does God say, “but he did do so much good that I’m not going to punish him?” Does God say, “They caused the people to transgress, but the people should have known better?” If he does I can’t find it anywhere, but I’m sure john can extrapolate such fiction from somewhere.
quote:But when you imply or state outright that the scripture condemns the idea of "harping" on the misdeeds of leadership, I disagree, and I challenge you on a scriptural basis.
Along with Eph 4, how about Col 3: 8-17; Phil 4:8? Unless you believe these scriptures don't apply for Victor Paul and the BOT? Especially since these people are no longer our leaders, what's the profit with the everlasting words of condemnation? Geeze, if you can't see what Im saying we are miles apart.
If folks want to engage in the endless condemnation, that's what they do. But i think it takes a pair to get on my case for trying to point out the culpability of others in the mix.
I didn't get a chance to read the link you pointed out to me, I'm going to read it today.
quote:You have no problem remembering that Jimmy Swaggart consorted with a prostitute, do you?
For all I know Swaggert isn't engaging in that conduct now and I think he repented of it, confess it as sin and received forgiveness. For me to harp on it endlessly (as the Wierwille haters do Wierwille for his misdeeds) is disobedience to those verses I quoted. Am I wrong?
the summary thought..."he who smelt it dealt it..."
and the more complicated one of defense of abuse on their part to illustrate what the Subtle Power of SPiritual Abuse says in many more pages which I wont duplicate here....but I will mention the psychology of trust as leverage of which they seem totally in denial of the existence of even the concept.
OM, it isn't just about docvic(praise be his name). It's about ALL of the leader.... of TWI that were sadistic.
In the context of this thread - I will repeat, because you are extremely dense - in the context of this thread, the culpability(where'd you get that, from your "word a day" calendar?) of others is IRRELEVANT.
I'll explain in much simpler terms.
Within the topic of Sadistic Leader.... (which, after all, is the title of this thread), what others have done is not important.
If you want to start a topic about the culpability of others, go right ahead.
You have made your point. Again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.
You do nothing BUT whine about the culpability of others.
Everyone knows just exactly where you stand on that.
quote:Colossians 3:8 But now you must put them all away: anger, fury, malice, slander, and obscene language out of your mouths.
I agree. I don't think we should get angry. I don't think we should get furious. I don't think we should be malicious or resort to slander. That doesn't mean we sugar coat the past, does it? Call it what it is: just don't let it get the best of you.
As for Philippians 4: I rejected that as an excuse to overlook LCM's authoritarianism, and I reject it as an excuse to overlook sadistic leadership. That verse can be used to justify complacency in the church. When misused for that purpose, I rightly reject it (just as you rightly reject it as an excuse to overlook the sins of the Catholic Church, a fact you conveniently neglected to mention).
Other than that, we're clearly getting nowhere with this. You cite verses to imply we should sugarcoat the past, and ignore verses that tell us to warn others about the harm caused by people acting in God's name. Go suit yourself.
Raf, Insurgent, Houseisrockin,Tom Strange, DMiller...Thank you so much for your gallent hearts and knowledge of the Bible.
Having been "the women" in this situation I applaud your stance. The issue is not adultry but abuse of power.
For myself again it was about not trusting my inner core self and giving up my power to the "spiritual ones". It took years of indoctrination to bring me to that compromising place. In my mind I was blessing God because I blessed his leadership. (I could puke now.)
Gentlemen you are welcomed at my house any time.
Your love for God speaks loudly to somone (me) who doesn't quite trust Christianity anymore. I'v read and seen to much oppression of women via this belief system and it's in the name of God. BULLSHIF!!! The Jesus I know would be far removed from the way some folks talk and feel about women.
Dinner is at 7PM, come on over, and bring some wine.
It saddens me that you were manipulated. I'm glad you recognize that for what it was. It saddens me that you have trouble trusting Christianity. As long as Christians are human, I don't know how you will find a Christian community that is free from sin. I hope you don't let the misconduct of a few Christians (or wolves) rob you of the Christ at the heart of our faith.
This really isn't the place for ministering, but if you ever want to talk, you know where to find me.
But i think it takes a pair to get on my case for trying to point out the culpability of others in the mix.
I almost never even look at threads like these but every time I do, there you are, “pointing out the culpability of others.” In all this time, you haven’t yet acquired a clue to normal ethical standards of “helping” professionals, have you?
Do you realize that a whole society of godless unbelievers (like me) hold doctors, psychologists, counselors, teachers, financial advisors, and people of almost every other profession, to a higher ethical standard than you hold ministers to?
quote:Maybe it takes the absence of a pair to constantly harp on the culpability of the powerless when the thread is about the powerful.
All it takes is some common horse sense to acknowledge that adults are responsible for their actions. You have no problem whatever accessing responsibility and blame when it comes to Victor Paul and the BOT -- But you can't or won't see it with others, continuing on with the victim mentality mindset excuses when it comes to others. That's why you totally missed Johniam's point about John 8, when Jesus called the actions of the woman (a powerless one), a sin.
This thread morphed into other areas but I'll repeat something I mentioned before: 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 and continuation of the victim mentality propaganda that twi leadership was all powerful and everyone else was helpless mindless idiots who couldn't make decisions on their own.
The sin of the abuse of power cannot be committed by those who are not in power. Don't you ever get it?
You deny that the power was "absolute," but it doesn't have to be "absolute" to be abused. It doesn't have to be absolute for God's people to be manipulated.
You say I missed Johniam's point in John 8. You're wrong. The point that Jesus said "Go and sin no more" was not refuted by me. What I refuted was the following:
quote:She, like many women who entered the corps, was probably thrilled to be working in the temple around those "men of God". One thing led to another and she was a sex slave for them. If she tells her family, they would believe the men, not her, and she would have been disgraced. Sound familiar?
Baseless speculation. All of it. Simply untrue, and unsupportable Biblically. That was my objection: that he was misinterpreting John 8 to make that adulteress analogous to the women of the Corps. In fact, the reasons for the adulteresses behavior are unknown and unexplored in scripture (except, of course, for what you guys just decide to make up to flesh out the story).
Well, that's the point I'm making. If it's not to your liking, sorry.
Oh by the way, sorry for the distraction. Please feel free to continue with the everlasting condemnation of Victor Paul and the BOT. It means so much to endlessly (like a dripping faucet, drip drip drip drip) warn others about these things.
So, you're resorting to the tactics of your friends...with namecalling, eh? That's it, throw stones like your friends do, keep throwing them. What happened to love and pray for your enemies?
Hey, you're the one who brought up the pair. But I'll delete if it offends you so. Maybe I'll replace it with "you're full of crap." You seem comfortable with that language, right? :)-->
And I don't consider you an enemy, but I do pray for you. I pray for anyone who still doesn't get the difference between the abuser and the abused; who can't see the distinction between a misled parishioner and a willfull adulterer.
quote:Matthew 18:6: But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
So, if someone leads a child astray, the child should obviously get a millstone too, since the child was foolish enough to believe the leader? Doesn't matter if they were led, of course--they still shouldn't have followed their teacher when he was wrong? Good thing Jesus said that. Oh, wait. He didn't.
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
Raf
It's not that I see no problem with it, Oldiesman. It's that I can't stop it. It's been argued before: should Wierwille be forgiven. Should Martindale be forgiven? Should we pray for them? There's no consensus on this. I can't quote Eph 4:32 at people who may not necessarily accept Eph. as an authority. It does me no good; it does no one else any good.
For the record, here's my take on the subject.
And contrary to your accusation, I was not "justifying" Wierwille bashing with scripture. You asked me a question and I answered it. Rather disingenuous to turn around and accuse me of finger-pointing.
How would Jesus respond to this? That was your question. I'm not certain how he would respond to something like this, 20 years later. Jesus told his disciples to beware wolves in sheep's clothing, didn't he? (If he didn't, Paul did). How are you going to avoid "wolves" if you don't have the personal courage and honsety to identify them?
This isn't justification, and you haven't rebutted it.
And, by the way, it is a lie to say that I "don't" or "won't" apply those scriptures to this situation. I absolutely do. It is more correct to say I will not impose those scriptures on those who do not accept them as an authority.
When I speak to you, I include scriptural references because I know you accept scriptures as an authority. When you say the scripture instructs us to forgive, I agree with you. But when you imply or state outright that the scripture condemns the idea of "harping" on the misdeeds of leadership, I disagree, and I challenge you on a scriptural basis. Understanding the misdeeds of leadership helps Christians to identify and avoid such misdeeds in the future. You have no problem remembering that Jimmy Swaggart consorted with a prostitute, do you? You have no problem recalling the misdeeds of the Catholic Church, past (Inquisition) and present (pedophile and sex abuse), do you? Do you forgive those priests? Do you say, "well, they may have done some bad things, but they also teach God's Word every Sunday." No, because you know and understand a place for recognizing, understanding and condemning sin. I don't see you saying, "but how many of those abused teens knew having sex with a priest was wrong, but did it anyway?" You don't. And why not? Because it doesn't matter! It doesn't matter if a male hooker dropped to his knees in a confessional booth: you hold the priest to the standard of knowing what is and what is not proper behavior for a minister of God.
I hold Wierwille, Martindale and other TWI leadership accountable for knowing what is and what is not proper behavior for a minister of God. Whether their "partners" were willing or not, whether they were equally culpable or victims of manipulative "wolves," is a side issue, one you constantly exalt over the main issue. Suit yourself.
I'm sure there are some women who were equally culpable. I'm sure there are others who were not. For those who were not: why did they engage in this behavior? That's the subject of this thread. How did good people end up "servicing" men of God in defiance of clear scriptures on the subject? Because the scripture was muddied for them. Because God was muddied for them. And that muddying was done on purpose. By ministers. I have more contempt for Pharisees who lead people away from Christ than I do for the misled, for the abused, for the hurt. To the victims, I would say "Go and sin no more." To the Pharisees, I would say "you unimaginable hypocrites. How dare you pervert the Word of God for your own lusts!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
insurgent
Ezekiel 3:16-21
And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.
When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked [man] shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Again, When a righteous [man] doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous [man], that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.
Also: Ezekiel 33:8-9, Acts 20:31
Eli and his sons were punished for causing the people to sin and for not being proper leadership. Does God say, “but he did do so much good that I’m not going to punish him?” Does God say, “They caused the people to transgress, but the people should have known better?” If he does I can’t find it anywhere, but I’m sure john can extrapolate such fiction from somewhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
If folks want to engage in the endless condemnation, that's what they do. But i think it takes a pair to get on my case for trying to point out the culpability of others in the mix.
I didn't get a chance to read the link you pointed out to me, I'm going to read it today.
For all I know Swaggert isn't engaging in that conduct now and I think he repented of it, confess it as sin and received forgiveness. For me to harp on it endlessly (as the Wierwille haters do Wierwille for his misdeeds) is disobedience to those verses I quoted. Am I wrong?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washingtonweather
welll-----
as far as om and jiam....
I think two thoughts,
the summary thought..."he who smelt it dealt it..."
and the more complicated one of defense of abuse on their part to illustrate what the Subtle Power of SPiritual Abuse says in many more pages which I wont duplicate here....but I will mention the psychology of trust as leverage of which they seem totally in denial of the existence of even the concept.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
OM, it isn't just about docvic(praise be his name). It's about ALL of the leader.... of TWI that were sadistic.
In the context of this thread - I will repeat, because you are extremely dense - in the context of this thread, the culpability(where'd you get that, from your "word a day" calendar?) of others is IRRELEVANT.
I'll explain in much simpler terms.
Within the topic of Sadistic Leader.... (which, after all, is the title of this thread), what others have done is not important.
If you want to start a topic about the culpability of others, go right ahead.
You have made your point. Again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.
You do nothing BUT whine about the culpability of others.
Everyone knows just exactly where you stand on that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I agree. I don't think we should get angry. I don't think we should get furious. I don't think we should be malicious or resort to slander. That doesn't mean we sugar coat the past, does it? Call it what it is: just don't let it get the best of you.
As for Philippians 4: I rejected that as an excuse to overlook LCM's authoritarianism, and I reject it as an excuse to overlook sadistic leadership. That verse can be used to justify complacency in the church. When misused for that purpose, I rightly reject it (just as you rightly reject it as an excuse to overlook the sins of the Catholic Church, a fact you conveniently neglected to mention).
Other than that, we're clearly getting nowhere with this. You cite verses to imply we should sugarcoat the past, and ignore verses that tell us to warn others about the harm caused by people acting in God's name. Go suit yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
imbus
Raf, Insurgent, Houseisrockin,Tom Strange, DMiller...Thank you so much for your gallent hearts and knowledge of the Bible.
Having been "the women" in this situation I applaud your stance. The issue is not adultry but abuse of power.
For myself again it was about not trusting my inner core self and giving up my power to the "spiritual ones". It took years of indoctrination to bring me to that compromising place. In my mind I was blessing God because I blessed his leadership. (I could puke now.)
Gentlemen you are welcomed at my house any time.
Your love for God speaks loudly to somone (me) who doesn't quite trust Christianity anymore. I'v read and seen to much oppression of women via this belief system and it's in the name of God. BULLSHIF!!! The Jesus I know would be far removed from the way some folks talk and feel about women.
Dinner is at 7PM, come on over, and bring some wine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
can i come too ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
imbus
You bet Ex... bring some cheese!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Imbus,
It saddens me that you were manipulated. I'm glad you recognize that for what it was. It saddens me that you have trouble trusting Christianity. As long as Christians are human, I don't know how you will find a Christian community that is free from sin. I hope you don't let the misconduct of a few Christians (or wolves) rob you of the Christ at the heart of our faith.
This really isn't the place for ministering, but if you ever want to talk, you know where to find me.
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Do you realize that a whole society of godless unbelievers (like me) hold doctors, psychologists, counselors, teachers, financial advisors, and people of almost every other profession, to a higher ethical standard than you hold ministers to?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Maybe it takes the absence of a pair to constantly harp on the culpability of the powerless when the thread is about the powerful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Hear! Hear! Well said, Pastor Raf!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
All it takes is some common horse sense to acknowledge that adults are responsible for their actions. You have no problem whatever accessing responsibility and blame when it comes to Victor Paul and the BOT -- But you can't or won't see it with others, continuing on with the victim mentality mindset excuses when it comes to others. That's why you totally missed Johniam's point about John 8, when Jesus called the actions of the woman (a powerless one), a sin.
This thread morphed into other areas but I'll repeat something I mentioned before: 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 and continuation of the victim mentality propaganda that twi leadership was all powerful and everyone else was helpless mindless idiots who couldn't make decisions on their own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oldiesman,
It's not that I don't see it...
It's that IT'S NOT THE FRIGGIN POINT!
The sin of the abuse of power cannot be committed by those who are not in power. Don't you ever get it?
You deny that the power was "absolute," but it doesn't have to be "absolute" to be abused. It doesn't have to be absolute for God's people to be manipulated.
You say I missed Johniam's point in John 8. You're wrong. The point that Jesus said "Go and sin no more" was not refuted by me. What I refuted was the following:
Baseless speculation. All of it. Simply untrue, and unsupportable Biblically. That was my objection: that he was misinterpreting John 8 to make that adulteress analogous to the women of the Corps. In fact, the reasons for the adulteresses behavior are unknown and unexplored in scripture (except, of course, for what you guys just decide to make up to flesh out the story).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
insurgent
and is that why you ignore all the other verses that hold the leaders responsible?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Oh by the way, sorry for the distraction. Please feel free to continue with the everlasting condemnation of Victor Paul and the BOT. It means so much to endlessly (like a dripping faucet, drip drip drip drip) warn others about these things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
deleted
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Hey, you're the one who brought up the pair. But I'll delete if it offends you so. Maybe I'll replace it with "you're full of crap." You seem comfortable with that language, right?
:)-->
And I don't consider you an enemy, but I do pray for you. I pray for anyone who still doesn't get the difference between the abuser and the abused; who can't see the distinction between a misled parishioner and a willfull adulterer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Semi-derail....
I object to protraying adulterers and abusers of their offices as
"wolves".
Wolves are organized in one of two ways: loners and packs.
Loners are solitary and have no social structure since it's just them.
Packs are run by an alpha pair who has authority over the pack.
When mating season comes, the alpha pair are the only wolves that breed.
The biology of wolves ensures the "lesser" females usually do not go into
heat, and those who do are sent on an enforced vacation until season is
over. (They can then rejoin, or stay away, or form a new pack or whatever.)
The males don't mate out of season, and other than the current alpha, none
of them do IN season.
So, in plain English, wolves are monogamous, and do NOT have sex with
subordinate wolves by virtue of their office. Some corrupt leaders,
on the other hand......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh,...
Take it up with Jesus, why don't you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
So, the biology of wolves tells them something people should have
already learned....
Leaders ought not to abuse their office.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Good grief.
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.