Wordwolf: Here's part of one of my posts on the sinister page 6.
quote:
I will say that Jesus saw what was going on and seeing what they did to that woman may have fueled the intensity with which he spoke to those Pharisees later in the chapter.
I was comparing the scenario of John 8 with TWI's abuse of women. That means the TWI abusive leadership is directly compared with the Pharisees of John 8. Where do you get that I'm defending them? Are you on drugs?
Raf: You can belittle my explanation of John 8 all you want, but just because scripture doesn't spell something out doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. You haven't offered up one iota of proof that it DIDN'T happen that way. Look at it.
If Jesus meant, as the KJV seems to imply, that these men had to be sinless period in order to cast the first stone, then it makes no sense. The OT law didn't require that. There were circumstances in which people could be stoned to death and those who threw the stones did not have to be sinless themselves, as if that was even possible. Those men accusing the woman were there to take a big bite out of Jesus' credibility; THAT'S what they really wanted. They didn't care about the woman getting stoned, she was merely expendable, which to me makes what they did even more despicable. The ONLY way they walk away is if they, too, were now in mortal danger. Jesus masterfully turned the tables on them.
If only the scriptures didn't say it, but they do...go and sin no more.
Hey, I'm all for equal time. Some of you say I have shifted the emphasis from the preverts to the prevertees. OK! Back to the preverts.
David's eldest boy, Amnon. What a piece of work. Live footage of this in 2 Samuel 13. He has the hots for Tamar, his half sister. He's the firstborn, for pete's sake. He could've had her all legal according to that culture, I'm sure. But on the advice of a friend he feigns sickness, requests that Tamar be the one to minister to him, rapes her, and then just callously tells her to get lost.
It took 2 yrs for justice to happen, but when it did, David was "comforted". Oh, yeah. Amnon was killed by Tamar's blood brother, Absalom. Now, if anybody's big brother or dad had tried to kill VPW or LCM, it wouldn't have been as easy, but would any of you today be sad or lose any sleep if anything like that happened to LCM? I doubt if God would...much.
Oldies: I agree with the plain as the nose part. I'm not trying to be mean and I'm sure you're not, but some people just need time and that's difficult on an open forum like this.
I recently listened to a prominent psychologist who was discussing the treatment of prisoners in Iraq. He stated that whenever there is a situation where one person has absolute authority over another and is operating under a veil of secrecy, that sadistic behavior often developes leading to sexual humiliation and degradation of the "prisoner".
I couldn't help but notice the paralel between the guard/prisoner relationship and the twi leader/follower relationship. There's no doubt that lcm operated with complete authority and with a veil of secrecy. His sexual exploits are known by many...
This would also help to explain how seemingly well intentioned people walked into a situation where they became sadistic and corrupt. The arrogant attitude of leadership, the aloofness, the sexual exploitation perhaps was fueled by the climate of "absolute authority" and "a veil of secrecy". They became kings in their own little kingdoms. As the brainwashed peasants kissed their rings, their minds went over to the "dark side"...Certainly not in every case, but in many.
regardless... this original post to open this thread still rings with truth...
I offered no proof that it didn't happen that way... except that the Bible doesn't say it did.
As much as you've attempted to justify your interpretation that those Pharisees had all had sex with that particular woman, the bible simply doesn't say that. You're speculating.
Yes, Jesus turned the tables on them. Jesus saw into their hearts and made them look into their hearts as well. But he did not accuse them of adultery in general; much less adultery with this particular partner. That is your speculation.
The point is this: you brought this whole episode up in order to show that Jesus Christ told the woman "go and sin no more," therefore not forgetting that she sinned. I agree. She sinned, Jesus noticed that, and told her to stop.
That is absolutely and positively irrelevant to the point that GOD'S "LEADERS" OUGHT NOT BE DOING THOSE THINGS. People who are "leaders" should not be manipulating the flock for their own sexual gratification (REGARDLESS OF THE LEVEL OF CONSENT INVOLVED). People who are leaders should not be neglecting sound doctrine, or neglecting the teaching of sound doctrine, to cover up their own sexual miscondunt and misbehavior (REGARDLESS OF THE LEVEL OF CONSENT INVOLVED). The point is that men of God ought not be doing those things, yet you and OM are constantly harping on the women who were taken advantage of. You are constantly harping on exactly how much they consented: even though their level of consent is simply not the point.
"When and where the Word of God remains silent, he who speaks is a fool." Wierwille said that. Your additions to John 8 are foolish. The Bible teaches enough without the additions that we bring to them: additions that only detract from the meaning of the passage.
The Old Testament didn't require a person to be sinless to cast the first stone. You are correct. The Old Testament also did not equate looking at a woman lustfully with adultery: Jesus Christ did. The Old Testament did not equate calling a person "idiot" with murder: Jesus Christ did. The Old Testament did not require a person to be sinless in order to cast a stone: Jesus Christ did. That's what it says; that's what it means. You see, John, Jesus Christ took the law and, instead of looking at it as a bunch of precepts, looked at it as a bunch of evidences of a pure heart. A person who doesn't hate won't kill. A person who doesn't lust won't commit adultery.
The lesson of John 8 is one of compassion. Jesus was compassionate to this woman: he did not go to her and say, "Do you recognize that you committed adultery? You know that's wrong, right? You know that's a violation of the Ten Commandments: did you know that?"
He didn't do that: he just went straight to the next step: go and sin no more.
Amazing that Jesus was far more "judgmental" of the Pharisees than he was of the sinners. I could learn a thing or two from my Lord. So can you.
quote:The point is that men of God ought not be doing those things, yet you and OM are constantly harping on the women who were taken advantage of. You are constantly harping on exactly how much they consented: even though their level of consent is simply not the point.
If a participant is involved in the same sin Wierwille engaged in, their actions and involvement are fair game, whether you think its relevant or not. Why are we constantly harping on them? Maybe you should ask, why are you and others constantly harping on Wierwille? What or who does that treatment serve, except feed some egos and give some satisfaction to those who want to vent themselves?
Raf, speaking of Jesus's compassion, do you really think Jesus would be or approve of the relentlessly cruel talk against Wierwille on these threads?
You mention Jesus was far more judgmental against the Pharisees than others....so then that justifies the treatment Wierwille gets from some posters? What of Ephesians 4:32? Does not that verse apply to Victor Paul, as well as others? Or applying it to him just doesn't matter?
Victor Paul Wierwille taught lots of us God's word like we never knew it before, and you and others are equating him with a good-for-nothing Pharisee. Your one-sided treatment of him deserves rebuttal.
"Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone"
The point was, Jesus Himself was without sin. He could have cast the first stone. He of all the people there was the One righteous judge of that woman.
quote: Raf, speaking of Jesus's compassion, do you really think Jesus would be or approve of the relentlessly cruel talk against Wierwille on these threads?
Oldies -- excellent point
imho - I think cruel, disparaging talk about anyone is distasteful (to put it mildly) to Jesus.
John...everything that you just wrote about me was assumptive on your part ...and dead wrong. What has how God has blessed and healed me from ... have ANYTHING to do with my personal responsibility??? I have NEVER denied it!
However, I can and DO resent the HELL out of the men who used us outragiously for their own gain...who desperatly hurt my beloved brothers and sisters in christ..I can vehemently deny your attempts to whitewash who and what twi and their leaders truly were....
Umm oldies...didn`t the pharisees teach/utilise scripture as well?
Simply because Mr.wierwille taught you some bible...doesn`t mean he wasn`t an a number one abusive ******* as were many of his hand picked favorites...
I guess all in all ... we should be thankfull, as the price we were asked to pay for your knowledge of the bible wasn`t as steep as the price the people who learned the scriptures from Jim Jones or david Koresch...sigh
quote:If a participant is involved in the same sin Wierwille engaged in, their actions and involvement are fair game, whether you think its relevant or not.
As Tom pointed out, it's not the same sin. Part of the issue, as I see it, is that you see this as "adultery," whereas we see it as the symptom of something greater:
"Leaders" took advantage of their positions as "ministers of the gospel" in order to take sexual advantage of God's people. The victims did not do that.
"Leaders" neglected sound doctrine (by not teaching it and/or by teaching wrongly about it) to cover up their own sins. The women involved did not do that.
"Leaders" told the women it was okay before God. The women trusted these men because of the men's positions as "ministers" of the gospel. The women were manipulated: I know you find it hard to believe that a woman grounded in God's Word could be manipulated to the point of thinking adultery was okay, but think about this: many Christians who, before involvement with TWI, were absolutely convinced that abortion was murder. TWI taught them differently, and they changed their minds. If TWI can get a reasonable person to change their minds about abortion, do you think it's possible that they could get a reasonable person to change her mind about what is right and wrong before God concerning adultery (especially in the absence of sound teaching on the subject: even the Christian Family and Sex class leaves it out)? The women committed no such sin.
quote:Why are we constantly harping on them? Maybe you should ask, why are you and others constantly harping on Wierwille?
I know it's hard for you to separate this, but please try: What people here harp on is NOT Wierwille's adultery. It's the fact that he twisted scripture and manipulated vulerable people. Yes, vulnerable. Those who were grounded in sound doctrine resisted, and many of them were blacklisted because of it. Others, who were not as grounded, were manipulated and coerced, either psychologically or worse. Do people harp on them to feed their egos? (I'd like you to name names on that accusation, because I don't know who you're talking about. Or whom. Whatever). Do people harp on them to vent? Yes. Do people harp on them because there are still those who don't understand that adultery is not the issue? Yeah, I think that might be a motivator.
quote:Raf, speaking of Jesus's compassion, do you really think Jesus would be or approve of the relentlessly cruel talk against Wierwille on these threads?
Probably not. Probably. I don't know for sure. He was known to call Pharisees hypocrites on more than one occasion. He is the one who coined "do as they say, not as they do." (Not an exact quote, but a fairly close approximation). "Generation of vipers!!!" Yup, that was aimed at the Pharisees, the people who led with hypocrisy. But what would he say about a guy who's been dead almost 20 years? Dunno. But he would probably say a lot worse to Wierwille's face than anyone here has said 20 years later.
quote:You mention Jesus was far more judgmental against the Pharisees than others....so then that justifies the treatment Wierwille gets from some posters? What of Ephesians 4:32? Does not that verse apply to Victor Paul, as well as others? Or applying it to him just doesn't matter?
Some of us here are Christians. Others are not. This verse, at best, applies to Christians. "Should people forgive Wierwille" has come up before. There's no consensus. I can't forgive Wierwille because he never did anything to me. I can however, use my best judgment about (not him, but) his record as a "leader." So can you. We do the same about every other minister: we just don't talk about it. For example: what do you think of Jimmy Swaggart? Oh yeah, you're probably thinking about that episode between him and the prostitute. You hold it against him, don't you? I sure do. And you know what? I don't have to waste time recognizing that the prostitute was wrong too. Swaggart's record as a leader is not dependent on the culpability of the prostitute.
quote:Victor Paul Wierwille taught lots of us God's word like we never knew it before, and you and others are equating him with a good-for-nothing Pharisee. Your one-sided treatment of him deserves rebuttal.
I appreciate God's Word, whether or not it came from Wierwille. You don't necessarily agree with everything Wierwille taught (CSBP), but it doesn't lessen your appreciation of Wierwille's teaching. That's fine.
And there's nothing wrong with "rebuttal." But you are not offering "rebuttal." What you're offering is distraction.
Statement: "Wierwille abused his position as a minister of the gospel."
Rebuttal: "No he didn't."
Rebuttal: "Maybe, but he did other things that round out his personality. It's unfair to focus entirely on the negative."
Not rebuttal: "The women were wrong too."
Notice how that last statement takes the focus off of what Wierwille did? It doesn't negate it. It doesn't challenge it. That's not a rebuttal: it's a distraction.
Rebut all you want. You were rebutting at the beginning of this thread: "the power exercised by TWI leadership was not 'absolute.'" THAT's a rebuttal. We can disagree about that. People can argue the point one way or another. That's fine. But you seem to be obsessed with the culpability of the women in these adulterous encounters when adultery is not the entire issue. Yes, I'm sure in some instances, these were purely adulterous relationships between two consenting adults. But in other cases, these were not instances of adultery. They were instances of abuse, perpetrated by men acting in God's name, perpetrated against vulnerable people who were taught to submit to their leadership, people who were convinced that God had one organization on this earth and they were in it. Maybe you would have stood up against that sort of psychological pressure. Bully for you. Others didn't have that strength. TWI and Wierwille were in a strong position in these people's lives. Like it or not, they abused that power. Was that power "absolute?" I would argue that no, it was not. But like I said early in this thread: whether or not it was "absolute" power is quibbling over semantics.
quote:The Old Testament didn't require a person to be sinless to cast the first stone. You are correct. The Old Testament also did not equate looking at a woman lustfully with adultery: Jesus Christ did. The Old Testament did not equate calling a person "idiot" with murder: Jesus Christ did. The Old Testament did not require a person to be sinless in order to cast a stone: Jesus Christ did. That's what it says; that's what it means. You see, John, Jesus Christ took the law and, instead of looking at it as a bunch of precepts, looked at it as a bunch of evidences of a pure heart. A person who doesn't hate won't kill. A person who doesn't lust won't commit adultery.
You don't understand. You must've taken VFs 'Heart of Christian living' class. I agree that, if you don't lust, you won't commit adultery, and if you don't get angry, you won't kill. But everybody lusts and everybody gets angry. Remember, in Matt 5 Jesus was talking to his disciples. One or more of them must've thought that if they didn't commit adultery in actual fact, then they were more righteous than those who did. Not true.
The message was...oh, you think you're more righteous than that guy just because he committed adultery and you didn't? Well, guess what? Every time you look at a woman and become sexually attracted to her you just committed adultery in your heart. Are you telling me you've never done that? C'mon, what are ya, gay? Don't give me that.
He was leading them to the same conclusion Paul wrote down in Galatians that by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified. He didn't come to destroy the law, he came to fulfil it.
quote:The Old Testament did not require a person to be sinless in order to cast a stone: Jesus Christ did.
Jesus had no legal authority over those men; they were there to boldly discredit him at the behest of other Pharisees. You think they're gonna not stone her just because Jesus reminded them they weren't sinless??? If Jesus had the authority to stop them from stoning the woman why in hell did he have to run out of there at the end of the chapter??? That makes no sense at all.
I haven't speculated any more than you just did. Like I said, just because the word doesn't spell something out doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.
quote:I haven't speculated any more than you just did. Like I said, just because the word doesn't spell something out doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.
I don't think I speculated at all. But thanks for playing...
According to me: Those men brought an adulterous woman to Jesus' feet and said she should be stoned. Jesus responded by reminding them what sinners they were. They left.
According to you: Those men had all had sex with that particular woman. Jesus knew that, and made an accusation against them. They left before the woman could rat them out.
Exactly how is my "speculation" in any way equivalent to yours? I basically reworded John 8. You added to it. Significantly. Bunch of baseless speculation designed to show... to show what exactly? Nothing relevant to this thread, that's what.
quote:Jesus had no legal authority over those men; they were there to boldly discredit him at the behest of other Pharisees. You think they're gonna not stone her just because Jesus reminded them they weren't sinless??? If Jesus had the authority to stop them from stoning the woman why in hell did he have to run out of there at the end of the chapter??? That makes no sense at all.
Are you suggesting that they chased Jesus because he had the goods on them regarding adultery with that particular woman? And you're accusing me of speculation.
Let's look again at your question: why did they chase Jesus at the end of the chapter? I don't know, maybe calling them children of the devil might have p*ssed them off. They were about to pick up stones and stone him for blasphemy - THAT might have had something to do with it. That's explicitly what the Bible says, your baseless speculation notwithstanding.
Makes no sense to you? Psst, come here: here's a secret: no one asked you. Stick with what the book says, buddy. Your baseless speculation adds to the Word. It is not what the Bible teaches.
So you're saying that Jesus' words in the beginning of the chapter stopped them, but he couldn't say anything at the end of the chapter that would have stopped them: this, you think, proves there was more to the encounter at the beginning of the chapter than meets the eye, right?
Look at the chapter more closely: we're not dealing with the same specific Pharisees. Your point is lost.
quote: ... (flatulance) ... (more flatulance) ... (amazing song-and-dance worthy of the Smikeol Dodging and Distracting Award) ... (and still more flatulace) ... (and on and on ad nauseum) ...
Like I said before, as so beautifully illustrated by today's postings of the Morning Crew of Oldies and Johniam (and so skillfully rebutted by Raf and others), I think they are trying desperately to hold on to the reputation and worth of VPW's ministry and teachings that, deep down, they know is dying off anyway.
No matter how much they defy his very same PFAL principles of biblical interpretation by means of private interpretation and scripture mangling to do so.
And no matter which of the abused's reputation they disgard along the way. Johniam's usage (and subtle slam) of the word 'prevertees' is but one clear indicator of this.
Why is it so hard to just admit the Word was twisted for self gratification? And that the first 'well trained' the second. There is more than enough proof. The doctrine that it was alright for women to be intimate with either of those men came from somewhere. And that is not even taking into account those not willing.
quote:But you seem to be obsessed with the culpability of the women in these adulterous encounters when adultery is not the entire issue.
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.
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
johniam
Wordwolf: Here's part of one of my posts on the sinister page 6.
quote:
I will say that Jesus saw what was going on and seeing what they did to that woman may have fueled the intensity with which he spoke to those Pharisees later in the chapter.
I was comparing the scenario of John 8 with TWI's abuse of women. That means the TWI abusive leadership is directly compared with the Pharisees of John 8. Where do you get that I'm defending them? Are you on drugs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Raf: You can belittle my explanation of John 8 all you want, but just because scripture doesn't spell something out doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. You haven't offered up one iota of proof that it DIDN'T happen that way. Look at it.
If Jesus meant, as the KJV seems to imply, that these men had to be sinless period in order to cast the first stone, then it makes no sense. The OT law didn't require that. There were circumstances in which people could be stoned to death and those who threw the stones did not have to be sinless themselves, as if that was even possible. Those men accusing the woman were there to take a big bite out of Jesus' credibility; THAT'S what they really wanted. They didn't care about the woman getting stoned, she was merely expendable, which to me makes what they did even more despicable. The ONLY way they walk away is if they, too, were now in mortal danger. Jesus masterfully turned the tables on them.
If only the scriptures didn't say it, but they do...go and sin no more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
John, another good point you make. For folks who want to understand what you're saying, it's as plain as the nose on your face. Thanks...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Hey, I'm all for equal time. Some of you say I have shifted the emphasis from the preverts to the prevertees. OK! Back to the preverts.
David's eldest boy, Amnon. What a piece of work. Live footage of this in 2 Samuel 13. He has the hots for Tamar, his half sister. He's the firstborn, for pete's sake. He could've had her all legal according to that culture, I'm sure. But on the advice of a friend he feigns sickness, requests that Tamar be the one to minister to him, rapes her, and then just callously tells her to get lost.
It took 2 yrs for justice to happen, but when it did, David was "comforted". Oh, yeah. Amnon was killed by Tamar's blood brother, Absalom. Now, if anybody's big brother or dad had tried to kill VPW or LCM, it wouldn't have been as easy, but would any of you today be sad or lose any sleep if anything like that happened to LCM? I doubt if God would...much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Oldies: I agree with the plain as the nose part. I'm not trying to be mean and I'm sure you're not, but some people just need time and that's difficult on an open forum like this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
John,
I offered no proof that it didn't happen that way... except that the Bible doesn't say it did.
As much as you've attempted to justify your interpretation that those Pharisees had all had sex with that particular woman, the bible simply doesn't say that. You're speculating.
Yes, Jesus turned the tables on them. Jesus saw into their hearts and made them look into their hearts as well. But he did not accuse them of adultery in general; much less adultery with this particular partner. That is your speculation.
The point is this: you brought this whole episode up in order to show that Jesus Christ told the woman "go and sin no more," therefore not forgetting that she sinned. I agree. She sinned, Jesus noticed that, and told her to stop.
That is absolutely and positively irrelevant to the point that GOD'S "LEADERS" OUGHT NOT BE DOING THOSE THINGS. People who are "leaders" should not be manipulating the flock for their own sexual gratification (REGARDLESS OF THE LEVEL OF CONSENT INVOLVED). People who are leaders should not be neglecting sound doctrine, or neglecting the teaching of sound doctrine, to cover up their own sexual miscondunt and misbehavior (REGARDLESS OF THE LEVEL OF CONSENT INVOLVED). The point is that men of God ought not be doing those things, yet you and OM are constantly harping on the women who were taken advantage of. You are constantly harping on exactly how much they consented: even though their level of consent is simply not the point.
"When and where the Word of God remains silent, he who speaks is a fool." Wierwille said that. Your additions to John 8 are foolish. The Bible teaches enough without the additions that we bring to them: additions that only detract from the meaning of the passage.
The Old Testament didn't require a person to be sinless to cast the first stone. You are correct. The Old Testament also did not equate looking at a woman lustfully with adultery: Jesus Christ did. The Old Testament did not equate calling a person "idiot" with murder: Jesus Christ did. The Old Testament did not require a person to be sinless in order to cast a stone: Jesus Christ did. That's what it says; that's what it means. You see, John, Jesus Christ took the law and, instead of looking at it as a bunch of precepts, looked at it as a bunch of evidences of a pure heart. A person who doesn't hate won't kill. A person who doesn't lust won't commit adultery.
The lesson of John 8 is one of compassion. Jesus was compassionate to this woman: he did not go to her and say, "Do you recognize that you committed adultery? You know that's wrong, right? You know that's a violation of the Ten Commandments: did you know that?"
He didn't do that: he just went straight to the next step: go and sin no more.
Amazing that Jesus was far more "judgmental" of the Pharisees than he was of the sinners. I could learn a thing or two from my Lord. So can you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yes! Well said!
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Raf, speaking of Jesus's compassion, do you really think Jesus would be or approve of the relentlessly cruel talk against Wierwille on these threads?
You mention Jesus was far more judgmental against the Pharisees than others....so then that justifies the treatment Wierwille gets from some posters? What of Ephesians 4:32? Does not that verse apply to Victor Paul, as well as others? Or applying it to him just doesn't matter?
Victor Paul Wierwille taught lots of us God's word like we never knew it before, and you and others are equating him with a good-for-nothing Pharisee. Your one-sided treatment of him deserves rebuttal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
"Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone"
The point was, Jesus Himself was without sin. He could have cast the first stone. He of all the people there was the One righteous judge of that woman.
And He chose not to.
What a Savior!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Oldies -- excellent point
imho - I think cruel, disparaging talk about anyone is distasteful (to put it mildly) to Jesus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
and as far as what Jesus would think or feel, i'll leave that up to him
ps. tommy, i just saw your post with the same quote
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
this is stupid
it's common sense
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
John...everything that you just wrote about me was assumptive on your part ...and dead wrong. What has how God has blessed and healed me from ... have ANYTHING to do with my personal responsibility??? I have NEVER denied it!
However, I can and DO resent the HELL out of the men who used us outragiously for their own gain...who desperatly hurt my beloved brothers and sisters in christ..I can vehemently deny your attempts to whitewash who and what twi and their leaders truly were....
Umm oldies...didn`t the pharisees teach/utilise scripture as well?
Simply because Mr.wierwille taught you some bible...doesn`t mean he wasn`t an a number one abusive ******* as were many of his hand picked favorites...
I guess all in all ... we should be thankfull, as the price we were asked to pay for your knowledge of the bible wasn`t as steep as the price the people who learned the scriptures from Jim Jones or david Koresch...sigh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
OM,
Thank you for some very good questions.
As Tom pointed out, it's not the same sin. Part of the issue, as I see it, is that you see this as "adultery," whereas we see it as the symptom of something greater:
"Leaders" took advantage of their positions as "ministers of the gospel" in order to take sexual advantage of God's people. The victims did not do that.
"Leaders" neglected sound doctrine (by not teaching it and/or by teaching wrongly about it) to cover up their own sins. The women involved did not do that.
"Leaders" told the women it was okay before God. The women trusted these men because of the men's positions as "ministers" of the gospel. The women were manipulated: I know you find it hard to believe that a woman grounded in God's Word could be manipulated to the point of thinking adultery was okay, but think about this: many Christians who, before involvement with TWI, were absolutely convinced that abortion was murder. TWI taught them differently, and they changed their minds. If TWI can get a reasonable person to change their minds about abortion, do you think it's possible that they could get a reasonable person to change her mind about what is right and wrong before God concerning adultery (especially in the absence of sound teaching on the subject: even the Christian Family and Sex class leaves it out)? The women committed no such sin.
I know it's hard for you to separate this, but please try: What people here harp on is NOT Wierwille's adultery. It's the fact that he twisted scripture and manipulated vulerable people. Yes, vulnerable. Those who were grounded in sound doctrine resisted, and many of them were blacklisted because of it. Others, who were not as grounded, were manipulated and coerced, either psychologically or worse. Do people harp on them to feed their egos? (I'd like you to name names on that accusation, because I don't know who you're talking about. Or whom. Whatever). Do people harp on them to vent? Yes. Do people harp on them because there are still those who don't understand that adultery is not the issue? Yeah, I think that might be a motivator.
Probably not. Probably. I don't know for sure. He was known to call Pharisees hypocrites on more than one occasion. He is the one who coined "do as they say, not as they do." (Not an exact quote, but a fairly close approximation). "Generation of vipers!!!" Yup, that was aimed at the Pharisees, the people who led with hypocrisy. But what would he say about a guy who's been dead almost 20 years? Dunno. But he would probably say a lot worse to Wierwille's face than anyone here has said 20 years later.
Some of us here are Christians. Others are not. This verse, at best, applies to Christians. "Should people forgive Wierwille" has come up before. There's no consensus. I can't forgive Wierwille because he never did anything to me. I can however, use my best judgment about (not him, but) his record as a "leader." So can you. We do the same about every other minister: we just don't talk about it. For example: what do you think of Jimmy Swaggart? Oh yeah, you're probably thinking about that episode between him and the prostitute. You hold it against him, don't you? I sure do. And you know what? I don't have to waste time recognizing that the prostitute was wrong too. Swaggart's record as a leader is not dependent on the culpability of the prostitute.
I appreciate God's Word, whether or not it came from Wierwille. You don't necessarily agree with everything Wierwille taught (CSBP), but it doesn't lessen your appreciation of Wierwille's teaching. That's fine.
And there's nothing wrong with "rebuttal." But you are not offering "rebuttal." What you're offering is distraction.
Statement: "Wierwille abused his position as a minister of the gospel."
Rebuttal: "No he didn't."
Rebuttal: "Maybe, but he did other things that round out his personality. It's unfair to focus entirely on the negative."
Not rebuttal: "The women were wrong too."
Notice how that last statement takes the focus off of what Wierwille did? It doesn't negate it. It doesn't challenge it. That's not a rebuttal: it's a distraction.
Rebut all you want. You were rebutting at the beginning of this thread: "the power exercised by TWI leadership was not 'absolute.'" THAT's a rebuttal. We can disagree about that. People can argue the point one way or another. That's fine. But you seem to be obsessed with the culpability of the women in these adulterous encounters when adultery is not the entire issue. Yes, I'm sure in some instances, these were purely adulterous relationships between two consenting adults. But in other cases, these were not instances of adultery. They were instances of abuse, perpetrated by men acting in God's name, perpetrated against vulnerable people who were taught to submit to their leadership, people who were convinced that God had one organization on this earth and they were in it. Maybe you would have stood up against that sort of psychological pressure. Bully for you. Others didn't have that strength. TWI and Wierwille were in a strong position in these people's lives. Like it or not, they abused that power. Was that power "absolute?" I would argue that no, it was not. But like I said early in this thread: whether or not it was "absolute" power is quibbling over semantics.
But that's just my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
"cruel talk against Wierwille"
just what is cruel talk ? that's what i'd like to know
ps. i knew his cruel talk and actions
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Raf:
quote:The Old Testament didn't require a person to be sinless to cast the first stone. You are correct. The Old Testament also did not equate looking at a woman lustfully with adultery: Jesus Christ did. The Old Testament did not equate calling a person "idiot" with murder: Jesus Christ did. The Old Testament did not require a person to be sinless in order to cast a stone: Jesus Christ did. That's what it says; that's what it means. You see, John, Jesus Christ took the law and, instead of looking at it as a bunch of precepts, looked at it as a bunch of evidences of a pure heart. A person who doesn't hate won't kill. A person who doesn't lust won't commit adultery.
You don't understand. You must've taken VFs 'Heart of Christian living' class. I agree that, if you don't lust, you won't commit adultery, and if you don't get angry, you won't kill. But everybody lusts and everybody gets angry. Remember, in Matt 5 Jesus was talking to his disciples. One or more of them must've thought that if they didn't commit adultery in actual fact, then they were more righteous than those who did. Not true.
The message was...oh, you think you're more righteous than that guy just because he committed adultery and you didn't? Well, guess what? Every time you look at a woman and become sexually attracted to her you just committed adultery in your heart. Are you telling me you've never done that? C'mon, what are ya, gay? Don't give me that.
He was leading them to the same conclusion Paul wrote down in Galatians that by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified. He didn't come to destroy the law, he came to fulfil it.
quote:The Old Testament did not require a person to be sinless in order to cast a stone: Jesus Christ did.
Jesus had no legal authority over those men; they were there to boldly discredit him at the behest of other Pharisees. You think they're gonna not stone her just because Jesus reminded them they weren't sinless??? If Jesus had the authority to stop them from stoning the woman why in hell did he have to run out of there at the end of the chapter??? That makes no sense at all.
I haven't speculated any more than you just did. Like I said, just because the word doesn't spell something out doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't think I speculated at all. But thanks for playing...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, let me clarify:
According to me: Those men brought an adulterous woman to Jesus' feet and said she should be stoned. Jesus responded by reminding them what sinners they were. They left.
According to you: Those men had all had sex with that particular woman. Jesus knew that, and made an accusation against them. They left before the woman could rat them out.
Exactly how is my "speculation" in any way equivalent to yours? I basically reworded John 8. You added to it. Significantly. Bunch of baseless speculation designed to show... to show what exactly? Nothing relevant to this thread, that's what.
Are you suggesting that they chased Jesus because he had the goods on them regarding adultery with that particular woman? And you're accusing me of speculation.
Let's look again at your question: why did they chase Jesus at the end of the chapter? I don't know, maybe calling them children of the devil might have p*ssed them off. They were about to pick up stones and stone him for blasphemy - THAT might have had something to do with it. That's explicitly what the Bible says, your baseless speculation notwithstanding.
Makes no sense to you? Psst, come here: here's a secret: no one asked you. Stick with what the book says, buddy. Your baseless speculation adds to the Word. It is not what the Bible teaches.
So you're saying that Jesus' words in the beginning of the chapter stopped them, but he couldn't say anything at the end of the chapter that would have stopped them: this, you think, proves there was more to the encounter at the beginning of the chapter than meets the eye, right?
Look at the chapter more closely: we're not dealing with the same specific Pharisees. Your point is lost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oldies and Johniam quoteth:
Like I said before, as so beautifully illustrated by today's postings of the Morning Crew of Oldies and Johniam (and so skillfully rebutted by Raf and others), I think they are trying desperately to hold on to the reputation and worth of VPW's ministry and teachings that, deep down, they know is dying off anyway.
No matter how much they defy his very same PFAL principles of biblical interpretation by means of private interpretation and scripture mangling to do so.
And no matter which of the abused's reputation they disgard along the way. Johniam's usage (and subtle slam) of the word 'prevertees' is but one clear indicator of this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
houseisarockin
Why is it so hard to just admit the Word was twisted for self gratification? And that the first 'well trained' the second. There is more than enough proof. The doctrine that it was alright for women to be intimate with either of those men came from somewhere. And that is not even taking into account those not willing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheManOfa Thousand ScreenNames
Speaking of speculation........
Let's go back to that fateful day.
Jesus says, "Let he (speculating he meant any person) who is without sin, cast the first stone."
Just then, a HUGE boulder comes flying through the air and crushes the woman.
Then Jesus says, "You know Ma, you're really starting to p*ss me off."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Sorry for distracting the Prevailing Mindset.
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.