oldiesman, You stated you saw the sexual overtures from VPW. I am guessing you did not spend much time observing LCM. Had you done so you would have seen he was much more skilled at letting his intentions be known. He was not a fondler of sorts like his teacher was. So if you can admit knowledge of the subject matter then why can you not accept the lengths gone to by both of these men to obtain satisfying their lust? Do you want it written in blood? If so you have read it in this forum since you registered. Is it possibly more the point you think we should have gotten over the abuse by now? If you gave yourself the room to believe we ever were. And because someone gives an account of their history does not mean they are sitting around 24/7 thinking about it, maybe there could be someone like that, but from what I have read the most part is telling not reliving.
To those abused in ways other than sexual I apologize for not including you in my posting. Your situations are equally devastating.
House, om said it himself, he's not responsible for his actions, which include what he posts.
Imagine that the topic of this thread was Red Flowers. om keeps on insisting, time after time after time, "but there are yellow flowers, too!", "but there are yellow flowers, too, dammit, and no one is owning up to it!" when all along, the topic has nothing whatsoever to do with yellow flowers.
He is a child in his understanding and actions. Don't hold him to a higher standard - you will be extremely disappointed.
He borders on autistic. Really all that's left is to pity him.
I've been away for a while.....but I see the same ole, ole people hiding behind bible verses. The standard of the bible is not something to hide behind, but something to be upheld.
The character of Jesus Christ is not something that one hides behind, but something one aspires to.
It's so sad that some don't get it. It makes Christianity look so bad in the eyes of the betrayed. :(-->
quote:"...if you've been reading my writings, I said children are not responsible for their actions."
So then Oldies would a "Child in the Word" qualify? No? Yes? -- Or only children by age?
At what age does a person officially become an adult? - Biblically speaking.
So let me get this straight ...
If I, knowing the Word "like it has not been known since the first century", take a woman who is relatively young in the Word, and who looks up to me as an Apostle, understanding deep spiritual truths, and then I teach that woman that having casual sex with me is not really sin, but instead that it is blessing God, -- then the woman is just as culpable in the sin of adultry as I am.
quote:oldiesman, You stated you saw the sexual overtures from VPW.
Actually, I saw nothing of the kind. I'm just giving assent to some statements I've read, on the internet and in The Cult That Snapped.
quote: I am guessing you did not spend much time observing LCM. Had you done so you would have seen he was much more skilled at letting his intentions be known. He was not a fondler of sorts like his teacher was. So if you can admit knowledge of the subject matter then why can you not accept the lengths gone to by both of these men to obtain satisfying their lust?
I do accept certain viewpoints, but to be honest, I don't believe everything I read. If you do, that's your choice. Some folks think because I don't, that's akin to calling them liars. But this is a forum about opinions and perspectives, not truth. Similarly, I don't expect everyone to believe all my perspectives, and everything I say. That's all part of the participation.
TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow.
quote:If I, knowing the Word "like it has not been known since the first century", take a woman who is relatively young in the Word, and who looks up to me as an Apostle, understanding deep spiritual truths, and then I teach that woman that having casual sex with me is not really sin, but instead that it is blessing God, -- then the woman is just as culpable in the sin of adultry as I am.
Is that how it goes?
What say ye O wise one?
No need to be sarcastic if you're asking me an honest question. I think the way you're framing the entire episode, I'd say no, she's not just as culpable. Culpable, yes, because I assume she has the intelligence and heart to know that having sex with a married man is wrong. That's why gals said no.
But I simply don't buy the helpless, mindless victim propaganda so espoused by certain posters. Sorry.
TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow.
quote:It's possible there are, but that would depend on the facts in each case. I certainly think sexual overtures from Victor Paul and the BOT are sexual harassment, at least. People shouldn't have been harassed in any way, shape or form. So if that's sexual abuse then yeah, there are DEFINTELY INSTANCES.
Must be me, I read this as affirmative. And as far as...
quote:But this is a forum about opinions and perspectives, not truth.
Not the truth, I beg to differ, but then will we ever agree?
Please stop isolating Zixar's quote out of its context. The context
was the affects of the organization itself on someone who currently
rejects their claims of authority, as regards to their actions in
a court of law. Isolating it OUT of that context is as honest as
using the "I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance"
verse as a missionary verse while ignoring the next verse says
"you shall break them with a rod of iron...".
You know better than that, and I'd expect better of you than that.
It's a brilliant statement, isn't it? Obviously from a very logical, thoughtful and honest mind. It pretty much sums up what I feel. Sorry if you don't agree.
TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow.
Abigail: No, it's not OK to do adultery or the other. But everybody has the sin nature which doesn't take much to fire up.
Without Christ, the OT law could not eliminate sin or the sin nature, but it probably prevented a lot of it from happening, by basically guilting the sinner into making an effort to curb his flesh appetites by obeying the commandments.
With Christ, as it says, we have the law "written in our hearts" but we also still have the sin nature. I think a lot of people in TWI were deceived into thinking that if they just did the so called 5 basics (study the word, SIT, witness, ABS, and fellowship w/likeminded believers) then the Christ in them would automatically kick in and anything they wanted to do was OK. No, you still have to want to do what's right. An unbeliever who wants to act virtuously will do better than a believer who doesn't.
So, for an unbeliever to commit adultery, they just have to adopt a 'if it feels good, do it' kind of approach and watch their back. By comparison, if a believer with Christ in does it, they have to deliberately ignore the Christ in them. More pressure, more responsibility.
Like I said, in Matt. 5 Jesus was telling them that just because they didn't break the OT law didn't mean they didn't sin, which means they needed a savior.
Please stop isolating Zixar's quote out of its context. The context
was the affects of the organization itself on someone who currently
rejects their claims of authority, as regards to their actions in
a court of law. Isolating it OUT of that context is as honest as
using the "I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance"
verse as a missionary verse while ignoring the next verse says
"you shall break them with a rod of iron...".
You know better than that, and I'd expect better of you than that.
It's a brilliant statement, isn't it? Obviously from a very logical, thoughtful and honest mind. It pretty much sums up what I feel. Sorry if you don't agree.
_TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow.
-Zixar_
Ok, perhaps I should NOT expect better of you than that.
The example I gave WAS straight out of pfal, and I know we both
thought that specific instance had merit. (I've seen that verse
used to justify missionary work, also.) The lesson was that
statements must be understood in their CONTEXT, and, isolated from
them, may be completely misrepresentative of the original speaker
or even common knowledge. You're deliberately ripping it out
entirely from its context to make it appear as if Zixar was saying
the same thing you are saying, and endorses your opinion. That's
entirely NOT what he did.
In case you're wondering, Shaz endorsed my use of her quote...
quote:But I simply don't buy the helpless, mindless victim propaganda so espoused by certain posters. Sorry.
I don't either, but I think I can illustrate what I mean without even using bible verses.
Example #1 - A man finds out his wife has been cheating on him for years, so he divorces her. Now, even though the woman did more to cause the divorce than the man, he still bears the same stigma of being "divorced". She didn't force him to marry her. Can he still have a good life? Sure, but not if his primary identity becomes a mindless, helpless, victim, especially if there are kids involved.
Example #2 - A woman has been abused by her husband for years, so she divorces him. She has full custody of the kids. Can she still have a good life? Yes, but I know of some women in this situation who remained so bitter and angry toward men in general that by the time the kids grew up they wanted out of her life like a bat out of hell. Sure, the man in example #1 could have been the same way, but that's not being very responsible IMO.
Oldies...NOBODY is espousing *helpless mindless victims* here....Not one single friggin poster ....NOBODY! Just point out one single person that is saying that vile thing about your sisters in Christ...you are just foul.
What we ARE talking about is sadistic leaders whom used their power and authority...manipulated the trust invested in them as spiritual advisors....manipulated the scriptures to make their demands appear justified... they used scriptures to steal that which wasn`t theirs...
However since you cannot seem to handle the true nature of your esteemed leaders it seems you must attempt to degrade and humiliate ....
Again...when YOU say that you don`t believe what we have written ...you are INDEED calling us liars....
entirely from its context to make it appear as if Zixar was saying
the same thing you are saying, and endorses your opinion. That's
entirely NOT what he did.
In case you're wondering, Shaz endorsed my use of her quote...
did Zixar endorse your use of his?
I don't know if Zixar endorses the use of his quote for the bottom of my posts. I didn't ask. But if he wants me not to use it, I'll just add a few words, and adapt his quote but it'll then be my quote. But I just can't believe Zixar would ask me not to use his quote -- it's brilliant! But I will adapt it and remove his name if he desires.
TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow.
quote:I don't know if Zixar endorses the use of his quote for the bottom of my posts. I didn't ask. But if he wants me not to use it, I'll just add a few words, and adapt his quote but it'll then be my quote. But I just can't believe Zixar would ask me not to use his quote -- it's brilliant! But I will adapt it and remove his name if he desires.
You take a quote from someone, and use it out of context attmepting to make a point that the author never intended.
Then when challenged on your out of context usage, suggest that you will add a few words and then use it as your own.
Like father-like son. Wierwille did about the same thing with PFAL.
quote:"...I assume she has the intelligence and heart to know that having sex with a married man is wrong."
Oldies, prior to TWI, did you have the intelligence and heart to know that the trinity was wrong? Did you have the intelligence and heart to know that the dead were not alive and that there were four crucified with Jesus?
It has abosultely nothing to do with intellignence and heart - and I think you know it.
oldiesman: While I appreciate your admiration of that phrase, WordWolf and Raf are correct in that you are using it quite out of context. If you want to use it verbatim, I'd ask that you remove the attribution. I neither agree with nor endorse the context in which you are using it, so please take my name off of it.
I don't see why it's so hard for you to grasp the error of blaming the victim. Perhaps a different analogy will illustrate:
Let's say you die, and (to your surprise) you appear instantly before the proverbial Pearly Gates with St. Peter standing there, right out of a Sunday School book. Pete consults the Big Book and says, "Ooooooh, I'm sorry, but the trinitarians were right. You didn't believe Jesus is God, can't let you in."
"But, but, that's what I was taught!" you say.
"Sorry. You should have known all along that Jesus was God, so that's no excuse." replies Peter.
"But I never meant any disrespect! It's not my fault!"
"Of course it is. You listened to a bad teacher and you followed his orders. You could have said no, but you didn't."
"But..."
"Sorry, gotta keep the line moving. Elevator's right over there. Next!"
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
houseisarockin
oldiesman, You stated you saw the sexual overtures from VPW. I am guessing you did not spend much time observing LCM. Had you done so you would have seen he was much more skilled at letting his intentions be known. He was not a fondler of sorts like his teacher was. So if you can admit knowledge of the subject matter then why can you not accept the lengths gone to by both of these men to obtain satisfying their lust? Do you want it written in blood? If so you have read it in this forum since you registered. Is it possibly more the point you think we should have gotten over the abuse by now? If you gave yourself the room to believe we ever were. And because someone gives an account of their history does not mean they are sitting around 24/7 thinking about it, maybe there could be someone like that, but from what I have read the most part is telling not reliving.
To those abused in ways other than sexual I apologize for not including you in my posting. Your situations are equally devastating.
imbus, thank you but can I bring tequila instead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
House, om said it himself, he's not responsible for his actions, which include what he posts.
Imagine that the topic of this thread was Red Flowers. om keeps on insisting, time after time after time, "but there are yellow flowers, too!", "but there are yellow flowers, too, dammit, and no one is owning up to it!" when all along, the topic has nothing whatsoever to do with yellow flowers.
He is a child in his understanding and actions. Don't hold him to a higher standard - you will be extremely disappointed.
He borders on autistic. Really all that's left is to pity him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
I've been away for a while.....but I see the same ole, ole people hiding behind bible verses. The standard of the bible is not something to hide behind, but something to be upheld.
The character of Jesus Christ is not something that one hides behind, but something one aspires to.
It's so sad that some don't get it. It makes Christianity look so bad in the eyes of the betrayed.
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckeer
Word Wolf what a howl! Its good to know God gave animals more senes than people
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Steve: If you're qualified to diagnose autism, I must be qualified to "interpret" the bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Oldies Posted:
So then Oldies would a "Child in the Word" qualify? No? Yes? -- Or only children by age?
At what age does a person officially become an adult? - Biblically speaking.
So let me get this straight ...
If I, knowing the Word "like it has not been known since the first century", take a woman who is relatively young in the Word, and who looks up to me as an Apostle, understanding deep spiritual truths, and then I teach that woman that having casual sex with me is not really sin, but instead that it is blessing God, -- then the woman is just as culpable in the sin of adultry as I am.
Is that how it goes?
What say ye O wise one?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Fine, okay, whatever. I don't see the connection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Houseisarockin
Actually, I saw nothing of the kind. I'm just giving assent to some statements I've read, on the internet and in The Cult That Snapped. I do accept certain viewpoints, but to be honest, I don't believe everything I read. If you do, that's your choice. Some folks think because I don't, that's akin to calling them liars. But this is a forum about opinions and perspectives, not truth. Similarly, I don't expect everyone to believe all my perspectives, and everything I say. That's all part of the participation.TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow.
-Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Goey
No need to be sarcastic if you're asking me an honest question. I think the way you're framing the entire episode, I'd say no, she's not just as culpable. Culpable, yes, because I assume she has the intelligence and heart to know that having sex with a married man is wrong. That's why gals said no.
But I simply don't buy the helpless, mindless victim propaganda so espoused by certain posters. Sorry.
TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow.
-Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Oldies,
Please stop isolating Zixar's quote out of its context. The context
was the affects of the organization itself on someone who currently
rejects their claims of authority, as regards to their actions in
a court of law. Isolating it OUT of that context is as honest as
using the "I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance"
verse as a missionary verse while ignoring the next verse says
"you shall break them with a rod of iron...".
You know better than that, and I'd expect better of you than that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
houseisarockin
Must be me, I read this as affirmative. And as far as...
Not the truth, I beg to differ, but then will we ever agree?
Later, got to get back to work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Wordwolf
It's a brilliant statement, isn't it? Obviously from a very logical, thoughtful and honest mind. It pretty much sums up what I feel. Sorry if you don't agree.TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow.
-Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Abigail: No, it's not OK to do adultery or the other. But everybody has the sin nature which doesn't take much to fire up.
Without Christ, the OT law could not eliminate sin or the sin nature, but it probably prevented a lot of it from happening, by basically guilting the sinner into making an effort to curb his flesh appetites by obeying the commandments.
With Christ, as it says, we have the law "written in our hearts" but we also still have the sin nature. I think a lot of people in TWI were deceived into thinking that if they just did the so called 5 basics (study the word, SIT, witness, ABS, and fellowship w/likeminded believers) then the Christ in them would automatically kick in and anything they wanted to do was OK. No, you still have to want to do what's right. An unbeliever who wants to act virtuously will do better than a believer who doesn't.
So, for an unbeliever to commit adultery, they just have to adopt a 'if it feels good, do it' kind of approach and watch their back. By comparison, if a believer with Christ in does it, they have to deliberately ignore the Christ in them. More pressure, more responsibility.
Like I said, in Matt. 5 Jesus was telling them that just because they didn't break the OT law didn't mean they didn't sin, which means they needed a savior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
OM said:
Which is why I (and others) have been saying "you just don't get it"...What about those that were drugged? Were they culpable as well?
(To be fair, whether you realize it or not, I have seen your viewpoint 'shift' some towards "our side")
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, perhaps I should NOT expect better of you than that.
The example I gave WAS straight out of pfal, and I know we both
thought that specific instance had merit. (I've seen that verse
used to justify missionary work, also.) The lesson was that
statements must be understood in their CONTEXT, and, isolated from
them, may be completely misrepresentative of the original speaker
or even common knowledge. You're deliberately ripping it out
entirely from its context to make it appear as if Zixar was saying
the same thing you are saying, and endorses your opinion. That's
entirely NOT what he did.
In case you're wondering, Shaz endorsed my use of her quote...
did Zixar endorse your use of his?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:But I simply don't buy the helpless, mindless victim propaganda so espoused by certain posters. Sorry.
I don't either, but I think I can illustrate what I mean without even using bible verses.
Example #1 - A man finds out his wife has been cheating on him for years, so he divorces her. Now, even though the woman did more to cause the divorce than the man, he still bears the same stigma of being "divorced". She didn't force him to marry her. Can he still have a good life? Sure, but not if his primary identity becomes a mindless, helpless, victim, especially if there are kids involved.
Example #2 - A woman has been abused by her husband for years, so she divorces him. She has full custody of the kids. Can she still have a good life? Yes, but I know of some women in this situation who remained so bitter and angry toward men in general that by the time the kids grew up they wanted out of her life like a bat out of hell. Sure, the man in example #1 could have been the same way, but that's not being very responsible IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Oldies...NOBODY is espousing *helpless mindless victims* here....Not one single friggin poster ....NOBODY! Just point out one single person that is saying that vile thing about your sisters in Christ...you are just foul.
What we ARE talking about is sadistic leaders whom used their power and authority...manipulated the trust invested in them as spiritual advisors....manipulated the scriptures to make their demands appear justified... they used scriptures to steal that which wasn`t theirs...
However since you cannot seem to handle the true nature of your esteemed leaders it seems you must attempt to degrade and humiliate ....
Again...when YOU say that you don`t believe what we have written ...you are INDEED calling us liars....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Obviously not, cause they didn't have full use of their mental faculties at that time.
TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow.
-Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Wordwolf
I don't know if Zixar endorses the use of his quote for the bottom of my posts. I didn't ask. But if he wants me not to use it, I'll just add a few words, and adapt his quote but it'll then be my quote. But I just can't believe Zixar would ask me not to use his quote -- it's brilliant! But I will adapt it and remove his name if he desires.TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow.
-Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Those leaders claiming to fairly represent their constituencies
in secular legislatures and meetings should not abuse their
offices by using them as tools to procure sexual favours and
commit adultery. Even the US Congress admits that, and some
people consider it an offense worthy of removing someone from
political office over.
Those people claiming to lead in God's name and in God's
authority ought to behave in a manner consistent with the
ordinances of God, and especially be an EXAMPLE of such
principles in action. They should especially honour their
bonds of marriage, and seek not to offend God by violating
his precepts by committing fornication out of wedlock. They
should seek Godly ways of avoiding temptation, and not seek
ways to please their flesh ("conspiracy to sin".) Finding
themselves in positions of direct temptation, they should exit
that situation swiftly and seek to avoid it henceforth, not
behave opportunistically, as if they found a dollar on the
street.
So-called Men of God ought not to do such things.
Christians all over the world have NO difficulty understanding
this, and seeing it easily from Scripture. No compelling
Biblical argument has been presented as to why adherents to
vpw, twi or pfal should seek to exempt themselves from
Biblical exhortation and doctrine. No significant argument has
been presented claiming to be Biblical that defends such
behaviour. It seems that only places like twi and David
Koresh's Branch Davidian group outside Waco have claimed that
their groups are Christian and their leaders are entitled to
have sex with their followers, even disregarding marriage vows.
(Koresh claimed he was now married to all the females in his
group....so all the women in his group belonged to him. He also
claimed he was the messiah, the King of Kings.)
I'm not saying that all the other groups are NECESSARILY right,
nor that twi's doctrines are NECESSARILY wrong or in harmony
with the Branch Davidians on all points. Being in the majority
is not a guarantee of correctness. However, when one IS in the
minority, it behooves one to be clear that one actually has a
good reason to dissent, that the majority doesn't see something
that one does not. In this case, it is specifically one
thing. So-called Men of God ought not to do such things, nor
seek to excuse such things.
It has been agreed that some other people have sinned in the
commission of certain acts. The people who committed them, in
some cases, have PREFACED their comments by saying they sinned
in their own actions. That is an issue that was already
agreed-upon, LOUDLY. Why it is still coming up over and over
as a topic for discussion, therefore, CANNOT be because it is
in contention. It must be another reason-was the previous
discussion forgotten so quickly? Was it deliberately ignored?
Do the same statements brought back distract from an
uncomfortable or ugly truth?
The two points that are still under contention is how much
consent and responsibility is in the hands of the victims, and
how much responsibility is in the hands of the perpetrators.
For example, drugging someone and having sex with them while
they're out is a crime in the eyes of the law, and will send
you to jail. It is considered that the person drugged and
unconscious was not able to consent, and that the drug was
given to circumvent refusal, i.e., you knew they'd say no, so
you took away their chance to ask. In that respect, it
resembles forced rape in that the person's ability to consent
is removed physically.
If a woman takes a shortcut crosstown thru Central Park at
night, dressed up for a night out, and a rapist leaps out and
rapes her in Central Park, the court will NOT accept
"well, she knew the risks of walking in the park at night" as
sufficient reason to exonerate the rapist. If the defendant
says "well, she was asking for it", he's pretty much guaranteed
his case is lost.
Those surviving rape and molestation need to understand what
led up to it and what happened, and why someone chose to
victimize them. (It's often nothing to do with lust for sex,
but a lot to do with abuse of power.) They don't need to hear
"it's your fault for not running out of the room" very often,
at least, nothing I've ever read indicates this is a legitimate
therapy tool.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
You take a quote from someone, and use it out of context attmepting to make a point that the author never intended.
Then when challenged on your out of context usage, suggest that you will add a few words and then use it as your own.
Like father-like son. Wierwille did about the same thing with PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Yeah but what I'm doing is not plagiarism cause I'm citing who said it first, right?
TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow.
-Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Oldies,
Oldies, prior to TWI, did you have the intelligence and heart to know that the trinity was wrong? Did you have the intelligence and heart to know that the dead were not alive and that there were four crucified with Jesus?
It has abosultely nothing to do with intellignence and heart - and I think you know it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
oldiesman: While I appreciate your admiration of that phrase, WordWolf and Raf are correct in that you are using it quite out of context. If you want to use it verbatim, I'd ask that you remove the attribution. I neither agree with nor endorse the context in which you are using it, so please take my name off of it.
I don't see why it's so hard for you to grasp the error of blaming the victim. Perhaps a different analogy will illustrate:
Let's say you die, and (to your surprise) you appear instantly before the proverbial Pearly Gates with St. Peter standing there, right out of a Sunday School book. Pete consults the Big Book and says, "Ooooooh, I'm sorry, but the trinitarians were right. You didn't believe Jesus is God, can't let you in."
"But, but, that's what I was taught!" you say.
"Sorry. You should have known all along that Jesus was God, so that's no excuse." replies Peter.
"But I never meant any disrespect! It's not my fault!"
"Of course it is. You listened to a bad teacher and you followed his orders. You could have said no, but you didn't."
"But..."
"Sorry, gotta keep the line moving. Elevator's right over there. Next!"
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.