quote: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.
Zix, I will be happy to take your name off and apologize for my presumptuousness. But, I cannot, in good conscience, add or change any words. It's brilliant, just the way it is.
"TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow."
oldies: The problem is that (as I'm sure WordWolf, Goey, and/or Raf is/are sure to expound upon) the sentence is indefensible in the context of the abuse victims.
You've made yourself perfectly clear in that you wish to retain your admiration for a man regardless of the despicable acts he committed. It's one thing if all VPW had done was get caught with his hand in the collection basket. But it's quite another when your hero has violated other human beings for no cause other than satisfying his own lusts. There is no excuse for that, no defense for that. Every time you stick up for your hero, you might as well be raping these women yourself. You're certainly humiliating them anew. Would you call them guilty lying adulteresses to their face if you met? Or does the anonymity of the Internet give you false courage? Either way, it should be fairly obvious by now that bringing up this subject always gets you the same treatment. The most positive thing you can do now is keep your hero-worship to yourself. I can't stop you from loving Wierwille, but when your careless words reopen these women's wounds, you can bet the farm I'm going to have plenty to say about it. The wise move would be to drop this.
And by the way, in this usage, it would be "presumption" rather than "presumptuousness". You're apologizing for a specific presumptuous act rather than your particular predilection towards being presumptuous.
"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....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."
Actually, I see little difference in the O.T. ways and the N.T. ways, but that is a topic for a doctrinal thread.
However, do you not see how someone in a "leadership" capacity, someone who allegedly has more spiritual knowledge and wisdom, who is looked upon with admiration and as an example, would or at least should take FAR more responsibility for "adulterous" situations than the underling?
Perhaps the problem here is in part to due with simple communication and a problem with the word "victim" which seems to many to imply a lack of responsibility. However, having been a "victim" of both spousal abuse and sexual abuse I can assure you the "victim" does have resonsibility and usually thinks they carry far more of the blame than they actually should or do.
Yes, it takes two to dance, so to speak. Those of us who have been "victims" also played our role and share responsibility. I've seen a number of people here own up to it too. What I have yet to see is those who played the abuser/predator role own up to THEIR responsibility as well!
quote:You've made yourself perfectly clear in that you wish to retain your admiration for a man regardless of the despicable acts he committed.
I wouldn't call it admiration any more. On the other hand, I do not dismiss his godly works that helped folks gain a better understanding of God and the bible.
quote:It's one thing if all VPW had done was get caught with his hand in the collection basket. But it's quite another when your hero has violated other human beings for no cause other than satisfying his own lusts. There is no excuse for that, no defense for that.
Agreed.
quote: Every time you stick up for your hero, you might as well be raping these women yourself.
That's overkill.
quote: You're certainly humiliating them anew.
I doubt that very seriously. In fact, I think most folks don't really take me seriously and just see my posts as what they are, as varying opinions from someone who doesn't see it the way they do. If perchance someone takes my opinions to heart and gets bummed out, they shouldn't. Don't blame me for wanting to express an opinion that you might disagree with.
quote:Would you call them guilty lying adulteresses to their face if you met? Or does the anonymity of the Internet give you false courage? Either way, it should be fairly obvious by now that bringing up this subject always gets you the same treatment. The most positive thing you can do now is keep your hero-worship to yourself. I can't stop you from loving Wierwille, but when your careless words reopen these women's wounds, you can bet the farm I'm going to have plenty to say about it. The wise move would be to drop this.
I think you're taking this too seriously. But feel free to express your opinions, and I'll keep expressing mine. Hopefully we can learn some things from each other. Thanks for your opinions, and thanks for that magnificent statement.
I need to do some work now that might have me busy for awhile, so if I don't respond to some posters, I'm not ignoring anyone, just busy.
"TWI has now power over you except that which your actions allow."
I doubt that very seriously. In fact, I think most folks don't really take me seriously and just see my posts as what they are, as varying opinions from someone who doesn't see it the way they do. If perchance someone takes my opinions to heart and gets bummed out, they shouldn't. Don't blame me for wanting to express an opinion that you might disagree with.
I have news for you. There are a lot of people taking this seriously. I italicized the above sentence to show how deeply-ingrained your blame-shifting has become. The attitude expressed in that sentence is the same as if you blamed an African-American for getting upset at your mention of the word "nigger". Like, it's their fault if you're an insensitive clod?
In the mental health feild we call a child who is oppositional to all and in all things,"Oppositional/Defiant".It is a disorder.
One of the statagies for dealing with this disorder is planned ignoring! When a child tries to hook you with words into their mind set,(to get their way) then it becomes a power stuggle with words. You lose. The reason you lose is because you are on their turf so to speak and are engaged by their rules of arguement. And we all know... "you cannot reason with an insane mind". Kids that are not cognitivly mature reason very little. They cannot be reasoned with.
The reason I bring this up is that Oldies and John have stated their opinion over and over again. And also has brought the topic of choice to their turf. Changing the abuse of power to "those adulterous women" It appears they are very fixated on women who commit adultry.
Any way I'v learned that if you ignore the word digs, "hooks", then you don't get caught up in the back and forth power struggle or one up-manship.
With children you redirect them BACK to the original start of engagement and DO NOT DEVIATE. They will do what ever they can to distact you from the original form. If you get distracted, it is a no win situation.
Oldies and John are not going to change their mind's and they will try like children to change the topic to their playing feild. It's up to you good folks weither you want to play by their rules of distraction or not. But be advised they will use painful,arrogant words and logic to hook you.
Don't get me wrong: I'm sure Bathsheba was an adulteress. It's just that in the telling of the story, her culpability was not the point.
God doesn't spend any time in II Samuel 12 discussing her culpability (I don't know if it's mentioned elsewhere, but if it is, I assure you it's because where it's mentioned, it's the point.)
God was mad at David. God was upset with what David did. Bathsheba's culpability was not a factor. David was held accountable for what David did.
Was He mad at Bathsheba? Sure He was. There was, after all, that matter of breaking one of the Big Ten. But it's not mentioned: because it's not relevant.
Get it? The culpability of the person who is used by the "man of God" is irrelevant to the discussion, regardless of her level of consent.
In other words: It does not matter one whit if the woman was drugged or raped or a prostitute, the point is that men of God ought not be doing such things.
Abigail: Yes, I can see that the leader is more responsible than the underling. I have said that TWI leadership has been abusive. There's nothing wrong with feeling hate, or even rage occasionally if you've been victimized like that. I never said these women weren't victims AT ALL.
Imbus: My first post was on page 3. I thought everybody was ganging up on Oldies and I thought he could use some support. Everything else I posted has been pretty much in response to what someone else posted to me. If Oldies and I have been "distracting from the main topic" as you and others seem to think, then why have there been no examples of sadistic leadership given since page 4? Me and OM do not have any phantom "pause button" which stops anybody from posting about sadistic leadership. Ala prochaine and Bramble gave some examples on page 2 and a few others followed, but the last 10 pages has been the "OM and Jiam show" with special guests.
Raf: OK, I'll say it. Men of God ought not to be doing those things. I agree. No predators, no prey. Do you remember from the VF class how he says that no matter how your heart got hurt or lured away from God or whatever...still only YOU have the power to make a change. Yes, going to God for help is a good idea, but each person is responsible to rise up. That's all I meant by taking responsibility. I never said the women were just as bad as the men or that they asked for it. By the way, Bathsheba's culpability was moot when David made her his wife. I think these women here are a lot stronger than you think.
One, regarding the VF class: take a look at my postings on the thread entitled "How much authority can TWI have over you." You'll find that I say pretty much the same thing.
You said: "Each person is responsible to rise up." I agree.
You said: "Bathsheba's culpability was moot when David made her his wife." Agreed. So why did we not see God say anything to her before that? Because He wasn't upset? No, we'll agree that He probably was upset, based on that particular sin making the Top Ten list. But her culpability wasn't the point of the account. The point of the account was David's sin, and how it affected not only David, but the entire kingdom of Israel. In that context, Bathsheba's role is not the point.
The point of this thread is the abuse committed by those in authority. That abuse is largely responsible for what happened to TWI. The culpability of the abused is irrelevant to that point. It may be relevant to other points, but not that one.
You said: "I think these women here are a lot stronger than you think."
Now, yes. But they are not in TWI now. They have had time to reflect now. They resent what happened now. They regret it. And they kick themselves for allowing this to happen in their lives. They honestly don't need us to remind them of what they did. At the time they were in TWI, they were manipulated, deceived, and abused. It happened far more frequently than you or I would like to think. Do I underestimate the strength of these women? Perhaps. But in turn, you vastly underestimate the power wielded by the abusers, and the extent to which they abused their position as "men of God" in order to satisfy their lusts. If you take your mind off the culpability of the women, you can more clearly see just how dastardly the men were. It wasn't just sex. It wasn't just adultery. It was the abuse of power, the taking advantage of love, and the rule by fear.
I apologize if I crossed any lines of decorum in this debate.
I do not see in her account that she was naked, as taught by VPW. I do read she was washing herself at evening tide on the privacy of her rooftop. David had to go on the rooftop of his taller home to view her. I don't see anything implying she encouraged David to do what he did.
According to Levitical law both the adulterer and adulteress were to be put to death. She sent for David upon recognizing she was with child from their encounter. She accepted responsibility for her part knowing she could be put to death. Yet nowhere does God speak of her sin.
Why was Nathan's example a lamb? If God viewed her as a seducing adulteress why inspire a story to his servant Nathan about a purified animal? Certainly another animal could have been chosen. Don't get me wrong here. I am not saying she was pure and innocent, but there is something to be said that God chose to not avoid the lamb here. Could it be the focus was on David's role for a reason?
But most importantly is the fact that David recognized his sin and sought forgiveness from God. Still to suffer consequences of losing his child. And the added burden of having to go into his wife and comfort her for her loss as well. Do you not think he took full responsibility for that loss?
Has anyone ever heard of VPW or LCM seeking forgiveness? I realize we can not know the heart of the man. But it would appear outwardly had either of them done so they would have also stopped taking unto themselves women that were not theirs to take.
Outdoor bathing, in and on your premises was common at that time. Nothing in the record indicates Bathsheba did anything out of the ordinary. David's armies were out battling, he was hanging around at home, being "king".
David should have been popped for his transgression by Law - Lev. 20:10 and Deut. 22:22. The penalty for adultery was rather stringent, although probably not applied at all times. That's why when Nathan confronts him and David repents Nathan tells him he won't die, ie, be forced to pay the penalty. Which says something about David because for all he knew the next step could have very well been to accept that penalty at that hand of Nathan. But by that time he'd been living in guilt for a long time.
David had gone through months of guilt and condemnation over what he'd done. Figure when this whole thing set up he was hanging around at home diddling around when his armies (and Uriah) were out doing battle. David was a warrior king and had made his reputation on the fact that he led his armies and had killed his "10's of 1,000's". David had no problem killing people in fact he seems to have been pretty good at it. At this point he's off the field and staying home.
When Nathan tells him the story about the guy and his sheep, you can see how out of balance and self-righteous David had gotten. The penalty for stealing another guy's animals was restitution, but David puffs up and declares "Kill the guy" in addition to that. No doubt he embraced the chance to declare how bad someone else was and make them an example, given that he was living with his own condemnation and hiding it.
David as recorded was certainly a man of unique ability and one who did great things. But he was also a man who managed to pi$$ away his life at that point. What he did with Uriah and Bathsheba is indicative of where he was at.
It is a shock to see how evil that is, that someone would say and act like they loved another person in order to use that person, without caring how much it could hurt the other person.
I was shocked when it happened to me. It still saddens me when I see it. Makes me think of the world as a sucky place.
That's one of the sad things about evil people. They don't listen to what you're saying because they care, but are merely gathering data that they can use to their own advantage.
I was shocked when it happened to me, but I have come to pity the people who live like that, because they have no idea what it is to love.
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
oldiesman
Zix, I will be happy to take your name off and apologize for my presumptuousness. But, I cannot, in good conscience, add or change any words. It's brilliant, just the way it is.
"TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Garth, ol buddy, friend, and pal, can you show me how to add that quote to the bottom of my posts, without me having to type it every time?
"TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
oldies: The problem is that (as I'm sure WordWolf, Goey, and/or Raf is/are sure to expound upon) the sentence is indefensible in the context of the abuse victims.
You've made yourself perfectly clear in that you wish to retain your admiration for a man regardless of the despicable acts he committed. It's one thing if all VPW had done was get caught with his hand in the collection basket. But it's quite another when your hero has violated other human beings for no cause other than satisfying his own lusts. There is no excuse for that, no defense for that. Every time you stick up for your hero, you might as well be raping these women yourself. You're certainly humiliating them anew. Would you call them guilty lying adulteresses to their face if you met? Or does the anonymity of the Internet give you false courage? Either way, it should be fairly obvious by now that bringing up this subject always gets you the same treatment. The most positive thing you can do now is keep your hero-worship to yourself. I can't stop you from loving Wierwille, but when your careless words reopen these women's wounds, you can bet the farm I'm going to have plenty to say about it. The wise move would be to drop this.
And by the way, in this usage, it would be "presumption" rather than "presumptuousness". You're apologizing for a specific presumptuous act rather than your particular predilection towards being presumptuous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheManOfa Thousand ScreenNames
***(Posted by Abigail)****
Johniam....
"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....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."
Actually, I see little difference in the O.T. ways and the N.T. ways, but that is a topic for a doctrinal thread.
However, do you not see how someone in a "leadership" capacity, someone who allegedly has more spiritual knowledge and wisdom, who is looked upon with admiration and as an example, would or at least should take FAR more responsibility for "adulterous" situations than the underling?
Perhaps the problem here is in part to due with simple communication and a problem with the word "victim" which seems to many to imply a lack of responsibility. However, having been a "victim" of both spousal abuse and sexual abuse I can assure you the "victim" does have resonsibility and usually thinks they carry far more of the blame than they actually should or do.
Yes, it takes two to dance, so to speak. Those of us who have been "victims" also played our role and share responsibility. I've seen a number of people here own up to it too. What I have yet to see is those who played the abuser/predator role own up to THEIR responsibility as well!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Zix
I wouldn't call it admiration any more. On the other hand, I do not dismiss his godly works that helped folks gain a better understanding of God and the bible. Agreed. That's overkill. I doubt that very seriously. In fact, I think most folks don't really take me seriously and just see my posts as what they are, as varying opinions from someone who doesn't see it the way they do. If perchance someone takes my opinions to heart and gets bummed out, they shouldn't. Don't blame me for wanting to express an opinion that you might disagree with.I think you're taking this too seriously. But feel free to express your opinions, and I'll keep expressing mine. Hopefully we can learn some things from each other. Thanks for your opinions, and thanks for that magnificent statement.
I need to do some work now that might have me busy for awhile, so if I don't respond to some posters, I'm not ignoring anyone, just busy.
"TWI has now power over you except that which your actions allow."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
imbus
In the mental health feild we call a child who is oppositional to all and in all things,"Oppositional/Defiant".It is a disorder.
One of the statagies for dealing with this disorder is planned ignoring! When a child tries to hook you with words into their mind set,(to get their way) then it becomes a power stuggle with words. You lose. The reason you lose is because you are on their turf so to speak and are engaged by their rules of arguement. And we all know... "you cannot reason with an insane mind". Kids that are not cognitivly mature reason very little. They cannot be reasoned with.
The reason I bring this up is that Oldies and John have stated their opinion over and over again. And also has brought the topic of choice to their turf. Changing the abuse of power to "those adulterous women" It appears they are very fixated on women who commit adultry.
Any way I'v learned that if you ignore the word digs, "hooks", then you don't get caught up in the back and forth power struggle or one up-manship.
With children you redirect them BACK to the original start of engagement and DO NOT DEVIATE. They will do what ever they can to distact you from the original form. If you get distracted, it is a no win situation.
Oldies and John are not going to change their mind's and they will try like children to change the topic to their playing feild. It's up to you good folks weither you want to play by their rules of distraction or not. But be advised they will use painful,arrogant words and logic to hook you.
I choose not to play.
:P-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
In this particular case, I think 'plague' is a more apt description.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Can someone help me out here?
I'm looking for the place in the Bible where Bathsheba is chastised for her adultery...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Raf,
I think that its in VPW's Extended Expanded According to (mis)Usage Version of the King James Bible.
You ought to be able to tell where it is. The words of the account are in italics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Don't get me wrong: I'm sure Bathsheba was an adulteress. It's just that in the telling of the story, her culpability was not the point.
God doesn't spend any time in II Samuel 12 discussing her culpability (I don't know if it's mentioned elsewhere, but if it is, I assure you it's because where it's mentioned, it's the point.)
God was mad at David. God was upset with what David did. Bathsheba's culpability was not a factor. David was held accountable for what David did.
Was He mad at Bathsheba? Sure He was. There was, after all, that matter of breaking one of the Big Ten. But it's not mentioned: because it's not relevant.
Get it? The culpability of the person who is used by the "man of God" is irrelevant to the discussion, regardless of her level of consent.
In other words: It does not matter one whit if the woman was drugged or raped or a prostitute, the point is that men of God ought not be doing such things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Amen Rafe....*men of God ought NOT to be doing such things*.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Abigail: Yes, I can see that the leader is more responsible than the underling. I have said that TWI leadership has been abusive. There's nothing wrong with feeling hate, or even rage occasionally if you've been victimized like that. I never said these women weren't victims AT ALL.
Imbus: My first post was on page 3. I thought everybody was ganging up on Oldies and I thought he could use some support. Everything else I posted has been pretty much in response to what someone else posted to me. If Oldies and I have been "distracting from the main topic" as you and others seem to think, then why have there been no examples of sadistic leadership given since page 4? Me and OM do not have any phantom "pause button" which stops anybody from posting about sadistic leadership. Ala prochaine and Bramble gave some examples on page 2 and a few others followed, but the last 10 pages has been the "OM and Jiam show" with special guests.
Raf: OK, I'll say it. Men of God ought not to be doing those things. I agree. No predators, no prey. Do you remember from the VF class how he says that no matter how your heart got hurt or lured away from God or whatever...still only YOU have the power to make a change. Yes, going to God for help is a good idea, but each person is responsible to rise up. That's all I meant by taking responsibility. I never said the women were just as bad as the men or that they asked for it. By the way, Bathsheba's culpability was moot when David made her his wife. I think these women here are a lot stronger than you think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
John,
Thank you. I truly appreciate your post.
A couple of things:
One, regarding the VF class: take a look at my postings on the thread entitled "How much authority can TWI have over you." You'll find that I say pretty much the same thing.
You said: "Each person is responsible to rise up." I agree.
You said: "Bathsheba's culpability was moot when David made her his wife." Agreed. So why did we not see God say anything to her before that? Because He wasn't upset? No, we'll agree that He probably was upset, based on that particular sin making the Top Ten list. But her culpability wasn't the point of the account. The point of the account was David's sin, and how it affected not only David, but the entire kingdom of Israel. In that context, Bathsheba's role is not the point.
The point of this thread is the abuse committed by those in authority. That abuse is largely responsible for what happened to TWI. The culpability of the abused is irrelevant to that point. It may be relevant to other points, but not that one.
You said: "I think these women here are a lot stronger than you think."
Now, yes. But they are not in TWI now. They have had time to reflect now. They resent what happened now. They regret it. And they kick themselves for allowing this to happen in their lives. They honestly don't need us to remind them of what they did. At the time they were in TWI, they were manipulated, deceived, and abused. It happened far more frequently than you or I would like to think. Do I underestimate the strength of these women? Perhaps. But in turn, you vastly underestimate the power wielded by the abusers, and the extent to which they abused their position as "men of God" in order to satisfy their lusts. If you take your mind off the culpability of the women, you can more clearly see just how dastardly the men were. It wasn't just sex. It wasn't just adultery. It was the abuse of power, the taking advantage of love, and the rule by fear.
I apologize if I crossed any lines of decorum in this debate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
I am so overwhelmingly sad by your insensitivities but since you have never lived in my shoes i should not expect anything
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
something i haven't shared
it took me forever to get over that he wasn't who he said he was or didn't love me like he said he did
Link to comment
Share on other sites
houseisarockin
Going back to Bathsheba if I may.
I do not see in her account that she was naked, as taught by VPW. I do read she was washing herself at evening tide on the privacy of her rooftop. David had to go on the rooftop of his taller home to view her. I don't see anything implying she encouraged David to do what he did.
According to Levitical law both the adulterer and adulteress were to be put to death. She sent for David upon recognizing she was with child from their encounter. She accepted responsibility for her part knowing she could be put to death. Yet nowhere does God speak of her sin.
Why was Nathan's example a lamb? If God viewed her as a seducing adulteress why inspire a story to his servant Nathan about a purified animal? Certainly another animal could have been chosen. Don't get me wrong here. I am not saying she was pure and innocent, but there is something to be said that God chose to not avoid the lamb here. Could it be the focus was on David's role for a reason?
But most importantly is the fact that David recognized his sin and sought forgiveness from God. Still to suffer consequences of losing his child. And the added burden of having to go into his wife and comfort her for her loss as well. Do you not think he took full responsibility for that loss?
Has anyone ever heard of VPW or LCM seeking forgiveness? I realize we can not know the heart of the man. But it would appear outwardly had either of them done so they would have also stopped taking unto themselves women that were not theirs to take.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Outdoor bathing, in and on your premises was common at that time. Nothing in the record indicates Bathsheba did anything out of the ordinary. David's armies were out battling, he was hanging around at home, being "king".
David should have been popped for his transgression by Law - Lev. 20:10 and Deut. 22:22. The penalty for adultery was rather stringent, although probably not applied at all times. That's why when Nathan confronts him and David repents Nathan tells him he won't die, ie, be forced to pay the penalty. Which says something about David because for all he knew the next step could have very well been to accept that penalty at that hand of Nathan. But by that time he'd been living in guilt for a long time.
David had gone through months of guilt and condemnation over what he'd done. Figure when this whole thing set up he was hanging around at home diddling around when his armies (and Uriah) were out doing battle. David was a warrior king and had made his reputation on the fact that he led his armies and had killed his "10's of 1,000's". David had no problem killing people in fact he seems to have been pretty good at it. At this point he's off the field and staying home.
When Nathan tells him the story about the guy and his sheep, you can see how out of balance and self-righteous David had gotten. The penalty for stealing another guy's animals was restitution, but David puffs up and declares "Kill the guy" in addition to that. No doubt he embraced the chance to declare how bad someone else was and make them an example, given that he was living with his own condemnation and hiding it.
David as recorded was certainly a man of unique ability and one who did great things. But he was also a man who managed to pi$$ away his life at that point. What he did with Uriah and Bathsheba is indicative of where he was at.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Now that's about the sadest thing I have ever read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
is that bear hugging the other one or biting it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
looks like grooming -- grooming to me.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Dear exy,
It is a shock to see how evil that is, that someone would say and act like they loved another person in order to use that person, without caring how much it could hurt the other person.
I was shocked when it happened to me. It still saddens me when I see it. Makes me think of the world as a sucky place.
(((())))
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
thanks shazzy (i can't think of anyone deliberately hurting you, but i'm not insane)
what's so devious is he knew my abusive past childhood. that's a big part of what he "counseled" me about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
That's one of the sad things about evil people. They don't listen to what you're saying because they care, but are merely gathering data that they can use to their own advantage.
I was shocked when it happened to me, but I have come to pity the people who live like that, because they have no idea what it is to love.
Regards.
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.