IMO when men decide to lord it over the Lord's inheritance this type of b.s. in whatever specific form it take is inevitable.
What is even more creepy to me is how they will take all the wrong lessons out of nearly any reference to Old Testament kings as long as it increases their own power and influence in the ministry.
No comparison??? Beheading for refusal.......Being out from the protection of God denied the fellowship of the family...spiritual death to be followed by physical death for refusal....either way...the person thinks that they are going to die....so yeah, I`d say that the comparison is quite valid. Throw in drugging courtesy of the mog when refused...and that is as forceful as the women whom were dragged off at sword or spear point by the guards....
It is barbaric and cruel, and in either case left the woman without option. In wierwilles case, all the more so because he masqueraded as a minister, and contrary to all rules of decency, character and morality, NOT to mention laws of THIS country in the 1980`s. What a creep.
In my little splinter group it became regular practise to refer to those who have issues with the MOG (socalled) as in danger of "dying the death." (A reference to rev 2:23)
It seems to me that if a teacher can without limit draw comparisons between him/herself and O.T. Kings as they please ;including carrying out some kind of spiritual only death sentence; then those of us who remember have the right to hold them accountable.
Especially when by their own words and doctrines they were the ones to make the comparison.
I'm not so sure. Even so, the penalty for saying "no" to a king could be a beheading, so there's really no comparison.
No comparison at all....yeah sure.
Being kicked out of the ministry you were brainwashed in to believing was GOD ALMIGHTY'S ministry was devastating enough. At least those who had their head chopped off didn't have to deal with the mental bondages after the fact.
Oldies, I sure wish you could put yourself in the shoes of those who were hurt. You don't seem to want to give anyone credit who's been hurt at the hand of VPW.
Being kicked out of the ministry you were brainwashed in to believing was GOD ALMIGHTY'S ministry was devastating enough. At least those who had their head chopped off didn't have to deal with the mental bondages after the fact.
Oldies, I sure wish you could put yourself in the shoes of those who were hurt. You don't seem to want to give anyone credit who's been hurt at the hand of VPW.
I don't believe that to be a fair statement Oldies has expressed how he feels about that on several occasions. You seem to equate agreeing with someone's opinion of what is comparable or not, with sympathy for a situation it's not the same. One might feel sorry for someone that is sick for instance, but that does not mean that comparing them to something that is not comparable is true, nor that because they refuse to accept a untrue comparison that they have no sympathy either. You equate because Oldies does not accept a false comparison with VP that he has no sympathy for an individual. I'd say he does indeed ,but that sympathy does not include accepting anything as truth as part of the deal.
Far be it from me to put the brakes on a good ho'down, but I heard the teaching about David and the women and his being King, but never heard it in a context where VPW compared that to himself. I never got any subliminal vibe that he was even talking about himself. I know it's been discussed here and on Waydale (and no doubt other places) in that light and the comparison's been drawn.
Did Martindale speak about this as something he'd picked up from VPW and others heard of it that way? I'm curious - when and how the connection was made. Is it after-the-fact - as in "it's obvious what he meant by this teaching based on what he did personally" or are there some points in time where it's known to have been taught in connection to Way Lederz and traced back to VPW's presentation of it?
Whatever someone named "David" did 1000's of years ago along these lines is of little interest to me, and it shouldn't have any connection to anyone today, if that was actually the arrangement. Kings, rulers with power, do all kinds of weird shi-t. From a practical standpoint it's ridiculous. Why would one man have any right to "all" the available women in a kingdom for any reason that would be even remotely worthwhile to the kingdom? Rule by force - anything can be lawful but we know that doesn't make it right.
So anyway I'm still curious about any concrete details that can document where this connection between the David storee and a "man of God" today came into play. :blink: Are "we" making the connection or is it based on something known to have been passed around by VPW directly, or LCM, or who exactly?
The custom of "droit de seigneur" (right of the Master) was common in medieval times. The lord of a manor had the first shot at any woman, and it was not uncommon for him to "visit" one on her wedding night before even her husband did.
This was obviously NOT God's law in Israel, and certainly not right for a Christian leader! :o
So anyway I'm still curious about any concrete details that can document where this connection between the David storee and a "man of God" today came into play.
Socks,
I distinctly remember about 7 years ago, hearing vee pee in the adv class, or maybe on a tape from some other class, likening the passage he was discussing to his bodyguards bringing him a beautiful female believer.
I remember it cause it left me perplexed over what the meaning could have been and it stuck in my mind for 7 years.
Now I can't remember the passage, it could have been the one on David and Bathsheba, or it could have been another, he may have used a different word for bodyguard and female believer, but the idea was the same.
At the time I thought it was peculiar because he sort of chuckled about it, and we had just been discussing the role of his bodyguards earlier. Maybe someone here has access to the old veepee adv class and can verify it, but I do remember his reference and thinking it was strange and odd. I didn't know about the adultery then...creepy.
While I certainly heard "all the women in the kingdom belong to the king" taught a number of times I never heard any direct correlation made between that old testament concept and today, or twi's leaders.
However, knowing how twi used subtext to plant ideas in people's heads, I've no doubt in hind sight what was being implied.
BUT, I also repeatedly heard teachings on Romans "our freedom in Christ" being specifically taught to mean that bed-hopping was okay as long as everyone involved was spiritual enough that it didn't become a 'stumbling block' for them. This was usually quickly followed up with the comment that for "most" people it would be a stumbling block and that we had to take care of our brothers and sisters in Christ, blah-blah-blah.
Let's face it... in some egomaniac's mind, every girl he wanted would magically become 'spiritual enough' to handle it, even if she had the presence of mind to say NO to a MOG, which most didn't.
And there is no question that this teaching and other comments made by vic are what led to the idea that you can scr*w any unbeliever you want with no consequences at all, which happened a lot.
And then there is the way in which vic got around his own teaching of "spiritual maturity" as a criterion, which was to "minister sexual healing" to gals who he knew had been abused. And I'm quite sure in his own mind he was doing just that... of course most sexual predators think they are doing their victims a favor, don't they?
I don't believe that to be a fair statement Oldies has expressed how he feels about that on several occasions. You seem to equate agreeing with someone's opinion of what is comparable or not, with sympathy for a situation it's not the same. One might feel sorry for someone that is sick for instance, but that does not mean that comparing them to something that is not comparable is true, nor that because they refuse to accept a untrue comparison that they have no sympathy either. You equate because Oldies does not accept a false comparison with VP that he has no sympathy for an individual. I'd say he does indeed ,but that sympathy does not include accepting anything as truth as part of the deal.
When I started this thread, I wasn't implying anything was taught. I was comparing the similarities that MOGS seemed to have in common with Henry VIII. Similarities like feeling entitled to have any woman he wanted. Similarities like take the oath and confess you follow me as the Man of God or else. Similarities like Henry VIII reminding people "I'm the King of England!!!" or the MOG reminding people "I'm the Man of God of our day and time!!!"
I'm one who wholeheartedly believes VPW used the ministry as a means to fulfill his lusts. I don't believe for one minute it was about God unless it was convenient for him. Even Rhoda Wierwille told me VPW liked being in the spot light and in a high position. Maybe he liked being "King of The Way"??
LCM became a stark raving lunatic when he demanded people make a decision to follow him or get the hell out. He ranted about them for over 10 years after the fact. He definitely liked being King, but it stressed him out too much. He couldn't really handle it.
Sure OM has the right to think differently and the rest of us have a right to think you and he are "a little off".
Read the "famous last words" thread. There are many examples in there showing how many people believed leaving the "household" was writing your own death certificate. Was it taught on SNS? In some a word, yes. I recall Donna Martindales teaching giving examples of people or people's kids dying shortly after leaving TWI. Meanwhile, a standing believer had the superhuman strength to hold a airplane door closed so it didn't depressurize. The accuracy of the stories isn't relevant, the comparison is and that it was brought up in a SNS. It was clearly taught more to the corps and Adv Cl grads. I could go on, but the horse has been dead for some time.
So it is a valid comparison. The fact that some people disagree with the facts, is their right. You are wrong, but it is your right to be.
The teaching didn't need to be directly linked in an open teaching. It only had to be hinted at or taught and then later behind the scenes linked. Which in tandem with the above concept of death by disobedience, and a MOG persona the "doctrine" is made, the pressure is applied, and you have a choice. As the other teaching goes, "choose LIFE!"
It is not a 1 to 1 comparison but it is a valid one and it is THE same concept, from the times of Henry the VIII and the times of David, that VPW and others used to get his way.
When I started this thread, I wasn't implying anything was taught. I was comparing the similarities that MOGS seemed to have in common with Henry VIII. Similarities like feeling entitled to have any woman he wanted. Similarities like take the oath and confess you follow me as the Man of God or else. Similarities like Henry VIII reminding people "I'm the King of England!!!" or the MOG reminding people "I'm the Man of God of our day and time!!!"
So it is a valid comparison. The fact that some people disagree with the facts, is their right. You are wrong, but it is your right to be.
I am not disputing the fact that some people, upon leaving twi, wondered if everything would be ok. I'm opining that that worry had NO comparison to an actual beheading by a King who had the military might to pull it off as desired. It's still apples and oranges. Comparing a religion where participants have free will with a military dictatorship where free will can get one killed, will never be a fair or factual comparison. If one commits treason against twi, one gets marked and avoided. If one commits treason against the King, one gets beheaded.
Whether the reality of the consequences happens or not, it is the fear of those consequences, real or not, that brings a person to the point of acquiescence. It doesn't matter how the person in power gets you to the point of fearing your own disobedience, relinquishing your liberty to them, but one way or the other they have brought you to that point and you have bought into it. Fact is, there were teachings that explicitly and implicitly drew a line between leaving the "household" and death, citing actual deaths as examples. So "mark and avoid" was a powerfully divisive tool. There were and are multiple teachings from the bible where people died because of disobedience. Anyone who sat through PFAL and bought into it had already started down that road with the "private interpretation," fall of man, and law of believing teachings.
I am not disputing the fact that some people, upon leaving twi, wondered if everything would be ok.
We're not talking about fear because you've left. We're talking about people who obeyed and acquiesced out of fear. I think many people who stayed or stayed longer feared for their lives a little more than just whether they would be "ok."
Far be it from me to put the brakes on a good ho'down, but I heard the teaching about David and the women and his being King, but never heard it in a context where VPW compared that to himself. I never got any subliminal vibe that he was even talking about himself. I know it's been discussed here and on Waydale (and no doubt other places) in that light and the comparison's been drawn.
Did Martindale speak about this as something he'd picked up from VPW and others heard of it that way? I'm curious - when and how the connection was made. Is it after-the-fact - as in "it's obvious what he meant by this teaching based on what he did personally" or are there some points in time where it's known to have been taught in connection to Way Lederz and traced back to VPW's presentation of it?
Whatever someone named "David" did 1000's of years ago along these lines is of little interest to me, and it shouldn't have any connection to anyone today, if that was actually the arrangement. Kings, rulers with power, do all kinds of weird shi-t. From a practical standpoint it's ridiculous. Why would one man have any right to "all" the available women in a kingdom for any reason that would be even remotely worthwhile to the kingdom? Rule by force - anything can be lawful but we know that doesn't make it right.
So anyway I'm still curious about any concrete details that can document where this connection between the David storee and a "man of God" today came into play. :blink: Are "we" making the connection or is it based on something known to have been passed around by VPW directly, or LCM, or who exactly?
I do not believe VP ever directly said it of himself, I remember hearing him teach on this subject, and it was more the way he held himself and strutted himself on the stage and as he would look at the audience. For example, one time, after saying that all the women belonged to the King, etc. he raised his eyebrows and said something like 'Oh, Ho!" At least with me, it was more the implications and allusions he made to it that caused one to draw these conclusions. Others may have heard it directly, but my hearing of it was an allusion.
In "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus" which was edited after Dr.'s passing by Chris Geer, Dr. Wierwille teaches some things that have always troubled me along these lines. In the chapter entitled "David and Bathsheba... The Final Chapter", Dr Wierwille explains how it would have been improper for Bathsheba to come in and acuse the king and Abishag of improper conduct. He impied that the right way to handle these situations was by revelation only, and it was not good enough to accuse the king rightly for his misbehavior.
DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR TO SOME OF YOU FOLKS TOO?????
The teaching troubled me right from the first time that I read it because when I read the biblical record it was clear that all Abishag did was keep the king warm, but as Dr. taught this record he said that Bathsheba had "All the right in the world to come in and say: 'Look, you're my husband. Abishag, you get out of here, you sex fiend.'" ......
In truth, as Abishag only kept the king warm Bathsheba DID NOT have the right to say that, so who was Dr. Wierwille really talking about anyway?
After my fellowship here with you folks it seems clear to me that this error in teaching what the Word of God actually says in this record indicates a big problem in Dr.'s last days in his own life.
I am not disputing the fact that some people, upon leaving twi, wondered if everything would be ok. I'm opining that that worry had NO comparison to an actual beheading by a King who had the military might to pull it off as desired. It's still apples and oranges. Comparing a religion where participants have free will with a military dictatorship where free will can get one killed, will never be a fair or factual comparison. If one commits treason against twi, one gets marked and avoided. If one commits treason against the King, one gets beheaded.
Comparisons are not considered literals. I think you are being too literal in your point.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
19
14
14
Popular Days
Apr 30
33
Apr 29
28
May 1
20
Apr 28
14
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 16 posts
oldiesman 19 posts
brideofjc 14 posts
JeffSjo 14 posts
Popular Days
Apr 30 2008
33 posts
Apr 29 2008
28 posts
May 1 2008
20 posts
Apr 28 2008
14 posts
Watered Garden
And ironically, David was under the same Mosaic law as everyone else in his kingdom. All the women did NOT belong to the king, they belonged to God!
Henry VIII was a bounder all right. He had about as much right to be the head of any church as a couple other bounders I can think of right off-hand.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I'm not so sure. Even so, the penalty for saying "no" to a king could be a beheading, so there's really no comparison.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Dear Notawayfer,
IMO when men decide to lord it over the Lord's inheritance this type of b.s. in whatever specific form it take is inevitable.
What is even more creepy to me is how they will take all the wrong lessons out of nearly any reference to Old Testament kings as long as it increases their own power and influence in the ministry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
No comparison??? Beheading for refusal.......Being out from the protection of God denied the fellowship of the family...spiritual death to be followed by physical death for refusal....either way...the person thinks that they are going to die....so yeah, I`d say that the comparison is quite valid. Throw in drugging courtesy of the mog when refused...and that is as forceful as the women whom were dragged off at sword or spear point by the guards....
It is barbaric and cruel, and in either case left the woman without option. In wierwilles case, all the more so because he masqueraded as a minister, and contrary to all rules of decency, character and morality, NOT to mention laws of THIS country in the 1980`s. What a creep.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Dear Oldiesman,
In my little splinter group it became regular practise to refer to those who have issues with the MOG (socalled) as in danger of "dying the death." (A reference to rev 2:23)
It seems to me that if a teacher can without limit draw comparisons between him/herself and O.T. Kings as they please ;including carrying out some kind of spiritual only death sentence; then those of us who remember have the right to hold them accountable.
Especially when by their own words and doctrines they were the ones to make the comparison.
HI RASCAL!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well, gosh darn it!
Maybe they didn't actually "belong" to him but he was entitled to them because he was the Man Of Gawd For Our Day And Time, dontcha know?
Darn right there's no comparison. Henry VIII was merely the King Of England whereas VeePee was King of The Whole Stinkin' World!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
No comparison at all....yeah sure.
Being kicked out of the ministry you were brainwashed in to believing was GOD ALMIGHTY'S ministry was devastating enough. At least those who had their head chopped off didn't have to deal with the mental bondages after the fact.
Oldies, I sure wish you could put yourself in the shoes of those who were hurt. You don't seem to want to give anyone credit who's been hurt at the hand of VPW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I don't believe that to be a fair statement Oldies has expressed how he feels about that on several occasions. You seem to equate agreeing with someone's opinion of what is comparable or not, with sympathy for a situation it's not the same. One might feel sorry for someone that is sick for instance, but that does not mean that comparing them to something that is not comparable is true, nor that because they refuse to accept a untrue comparison that they have no sympathy either. You equate because Oldies does not accept a false comparison with VP that he has no sympathy for an individual. I'd say he does indeed ,but that sympathy does not include accepting anything as truth as part of the deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
and a one--two
Oh, Henry the VIII, I am, I am
Henry the VIII, I am, I am
errrr...scuse me....I just couldn't resist.....saw the title to this thread....
read Notawayfer's post and POOF
immediately saw Patrick Swayze singing this song in "Ghost!"
and a one--two
buckle my shoe....
Oh, wrong board....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
Didn't God strongly warn Israel about wanting a King like the Gentiles before God gave them Saul?
There is no new thing under the sun...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Oh for goodness sake, people.
This is serious stuff.
How are we ever gonna put a class together if we keep having fun?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Far be it from me to put the brakes on a good ho'down, but I heard the teaching about David and the women and his being King, but never heard it in a context where VPW compared that to himself. I never got any subliminal vibe that he was even talking about himself. I know it's been discussed here and on Waydale (and no doubt other places) in that light and the comparison's been drawn.
Did Martindale speak about this as something he'd picked up from VPW and others heard of it that way? I'm curious - when and how the connection was made. Is it after-the-fact - as in "it's obvious what he meant by this teaching based on what he did personally" or are there some points in time where it's known to have been taught in connection to Way Lederz and traced back to VPW's presentation of it?
Whatever someone named "David" did 1000's of years ago along these lines is of little interest to me, and it shouldn't have any connection to anyone today, if that was actually the arrangement. Kings, rulers with power, do all kinds of weird shi-t. From a practical standpoint it's ridiculous. Why would one man have any right to "all" the available women in a kingdom for any reason that would be even remotely worthwhile to the kingdom? Rule by force - anything can be lawful but we know that doesn't make it right.
So anyway I'm still curious about any concrete details that can document where this connection between the David storee and a "man of God" today came into play. :blink: Are "we" making the connection or is it based on something known to have been passed around by VPW directly, or LCM, or who exactly?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
The custom of "droit de seigneur" (right of the Master) was common in medieval times. The lord of a manor had the first shot at any woman, and it was not uncommon for him to "visit" one on her wedding night before even her husband did.
This was obviously NOT God's law in Israel, and certainly not right for a Christian leader! :o
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
Socks,
I distinctly remember about 7 years ago, hearing vee pee in the adv class, or maybe on a tape from some other class, likening the passage he was discussing to his bodyguards bringing him a beautiful female believer.
I remember it cause it left me perplexed over what the meaning could have been and it stuck in my mind for 7 years.
Now I can't remember the passage, it could have been the one on David and Bathsheba, or it could have been another, he may have used a different word for bodyguard and female believer, but the idea was the same.
At the time I thought it was peculiar because he sort of chuckled about it, and we had just been discussing the role of his bodyguards earlier. Maybe someone here has access to the old veepee adv class and can verify it, but I do remember his reference and thinking it was strange and odd. I didn't know about the adultery then...creepy.
Edited by but now I seeLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
While I certainly heard "all the women in the kingdom belong to the king" taught a number of times I never heard any direct correlation made between that old testament concept and today, or twi's leaders.
However, knowing how twi used subtext to plant ideas in people's heads, I've no doubt in hind sight what was being implied.
BUT, I also repeatedly heard teachings on Romans "our freedom in Christ" being specifically taught to mean that bed-hopping was okay as long as everyone involved was spiritual enough that it didn't become a 'stumbling block' for them. This was usually quickly followed up with the comment that for "most" people it would be a stumbling block and that we had to take care of our brothers and sisters in Christ, blah-blah-blah.
Let's face it... in some egomaniac's mind, every girl he wanted would magically become 'spiritual enough' to handle it, even if she had the presence of mind to say NO to a MOG, which most didn't.
And there is no question that this teaching and other comments made by vic are what led to the idea that you can scr*w any unbeliever you want with no consequences at all, which happened a lot.
And then there is the way in which vic got around his own teaching of "spiritual maturity" as a criterion, which was to "minister sexual healing" to gals who he knew had been abused. And I'm quite sure in his own mind he was doing just that... of course most sexual predators think they are doing their victims a favor, don't they?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Thank you WhiteDove.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
When I started this thread, I wasn't implying anything was taught. I was comparing the similarities that MOGS seemed to have in common with Henry VIII. Similarities like feeling entitled to have any woman he wanted. Similarities like take the oath and confess you follow me as the Man of God or else. Similarities like Henry VIII reminding people "I'm the King of England!!!" or the MOG reminding people "I'm the Man of God of our day and time!!!"
I'm one who wholeheartedly believes VPW used the ministry as a means to fulfill his lusts. I don't believe for one minute it was about God unless it was convenient for him. Even Rhoda Wierwille told me VPW liked being in the spot light and in a high position. Maybe he liked being "King of The Way"??
LCM became a stark raving lunatic when he demanded people make a decision to follow him or get the hell out. He ranted about them for over 10 years after the fact. He definitely liked being King, but it stressed him out too much. He couldn't really handle it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Whitedove,
Sure OM has the right to think differently and the rest of us have a right to think you and he are "a little off".
Read the "famous last words" thread. There are many examples in there showing how many people believed leaving the "household" was writing your own death certificate. Was it taught on SNS? In some a word, yes. I recall Donna Martindales teaching giving examples of people or people's kids dying shortly after leaving TWI. Meanwhile, a standing believer had the superhuman strength to hold a airplane door closed so it didn't depressurize. The accuracy of the stories isn't relevant, the comparison is and that it was brought up in a SNS. It was clearly taught more to the corps and Adv Cl grads. I could go on, but the horse has been dead for some time.
So it is a valid comparison. The fact that some people disagree with the facts, is their right. You are wrong, but it is your right to be.
The teaching didn't need to be directly linked in an open teaching. It only had to be hinted at or taught and then later behind the scenes linked. Which in tandem with the above concept of death by disobedience, and a MOG persona the "doctrine" is made, the pressure is applied, and you have a choice. As the other teaching goes, "choose LIFE!"
It is not a 1 to 1 comparison but it is a valid one and it is THE same concept, from the times of Henry the VIII and the times of David, that VPW and others used to get his way.
Very valid comparisons.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I am not disputing the fact that some people, upon leaving twi, wondered if everything would be ok. I'm opining that that worry had NO comparison to an actual beheading by a King who had the military might to pull it off as desired. It's still apples and oranges. Comparing a religion where participants have free will with a military dictatorship where free will can get one killed, will never be a fair or factual comparison. If one commits treason against twi, one gets marked and avoided. If one commits treason against the King, one gets beheaded.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Yes, in all seriousness, He did. What was on God's heart was that HE wanted them to choose HIM as their eternal KING.
This is really scary, Waysider....
FUN spelled backwards is NUF!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Whether the reality of the consequences happens or not, it is the fear of those consequences, real or not, that brings a person to the point of acquiescence. It doesn't matter how the person in power gets you to the point of fearing your own disobedience, relinquishing your liberty to them, but one way or the other they have brought you to that point and you have bought into it. Fact is, there were teachings that explicitly and implicitly drew a line between leaving the "household" and death, citing actual deaths as examples. So "mark and avoid" was a powerfully divisive tool. There were and are multiple teachings from the bible where people died because of disobedience. Anyone who sat through PFAL and bought into it had already started down that road with the "private interpretation," fall of man, and law of believing teachings.
We're not talking about fear because you've left. We're talking about people who obeyed and acquiesced out of fear. I think many people who stayed or stayed longer feared for their lives a little more than just whether they would be "ok."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
I do not believe VP ever directly said it of himself, I remember hearing him teach on this subject, and it was more the way he held himself and strutted himself on the stage and as he would look at the audience. For example, one time, after saying that all the women belonged to the King, etc. he raised his eyebrows and said something like 'Oh, Ho!" At least with me, it was more the implications and allusions he made to it that caused one to draw these conclusions. Others may have heard it directly, but my hearing of it was an allusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
In "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus" which was edited after Dr.'s passing by Chris Geer, Dr. Wierwille teaches some things that have always troubled me along these lines. In the chapter entitled "David and Bathsheba... The Final Chapter", Dr Wierwille explains how it would have been improper for Bathsheba to come in and acuse the king and Abishag of improper conduct. He impied that the right way to handle these situations was by revelation only, and it was not good enough to accuse the king rightly for his misbehavior.
DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR TO SOME OF YOU FOLKS TOO?????
The teaching troubled me right from the first time that I read it because when I read the biblical record it was clear that all Abishag did was keep the king warm, but as Dr. taught this record he said that Bathsheba had "All the right in the world to come in and say: 'Look, you're my husband. Abishag, you get out of here, you sex fiend.'" ......
In truth, as Abishag only kept the king warm Bathsheba DID NOT have the right to say that, so who was Dr. Wierwille really talking about anyway?
After my fellowship here with you folks it seems clear to me that this error in teaching what the Word of God actually says in this record indicates a big problem in Dr.'s last days in his own life.
(EDITED FOR GRAMMAR)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
Comparisons are not considered literals. I think you are being too literal in your point.
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.