All Activity

The problem with subjective morality can best be addressed AFTER one realizes objective moral values are not an option. Subjective moral values are subject to conflicting standards. If I use harm-benefit and you use "God's Word," there is no independent arbiter to decide which standard is right or wrong. The best each side can do is appeal to the standard. Now, I picked the hyperbolic examples to demonstrate you cannot presume the "God's Word" standard to be superior (slavery, death penalty, ordering genocide and baby killing). But those are hyperbole. But what about something like abortion? Harm-benefit doesn't give us a clear answer. (Some would argue it does). God's word does. (Some would argue it doesn't). In resolving disputes, subjective morality utterly fails. People simply disagree. And depending on the severity of those disagreements, we see different alliances, friendships, communities, denominations and even nations.

The modern concept of Hell, Purgatory and Paradise originated in Dante's Divine Comedy, in the 14th century. So, there's that.

"An eternity of torture" I think about the reality of this. Since God is all knowing, he would always be aware of their suffering. What would he be thinking? Would he even make his presence known to them? Would he talk to them? What would he say? Day 1 - "This hurts me more than it hurts you." Or the opposite, "It sucks to be you." Day 100 - "It's waaay too late to say you're sorry." Day 1000 - "Stop complaining, a millennia of torture isn't even a drop in the bucket when it comes to all eternity." Day 10000 - "If you can't handle the eternal time, you shouldn't have done the finite crime." Day 100000 - "No, for the hundred thousandth time, I cannot parole you. My righteous justice will not allow it." Any humour set aside, when you seriously consider the logistics of people actually being tortured for eternity, it is completely without reason or logic. It's a man made concept simply designed to put "the fear of God" in people like it has in you.

I apologize for my feeble attempt at humor. See, if you look at it one way, it looks like God and if you look at it *another*way, it looks like Dog. Soooo..it all depends on how you look at it. (I knew I shouldn't have quit my day-job.)

Definitely a dog person…my pooch has never let me down and can always be counted on for her loyalty.

One more.

How's about some Saturday Night Blues?

Or a Dogly person. It all depends on how you look at it.

I was thinking about what it takes to live a Godly life and realized one of God’s demands is for him to be worshipped by his subjects. People also love to be worshipped by the fact of owning pets. Not only are they good company, but my dog loves to please me, which also makes me feel good. If I say “down,” she jumps off the chair. When I say “out,” she heads for the outside door. And just like when God punishes me for not obeying him, when the dog does not jump down, I punish her for disobeying me. Apparently I really am a Godly person.

Apparently the RC church still needs cleaning up. After decades of promises to fix abuse, Pope Leo XIV says abuse needs to be uprooted. https://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/pope-leo-xiv-says-there-should-be-no-tolerance-20387519.php Go Chicago Whitesox

For sure living this side of death to it fullest means not having to be concerned about a life after death. Just think how freeing it is, when you make a mistake in life and not have to worry about confessing it to an unseen god, and then also wonder what effect it will have when you finally see this unseen god face to face?

LA is fine, sunshine most the time and the feeling is laid back LA's fine, but it ain't home New York's home but it ain't mine no more

Success!

I get your point about JS conflating his two reasons for beginning the study for his paper. The first reason occurred during JS’s last year of residency (which being in the 6th corps would have been in 1976/77.) His words regarding this initial study were, “I began studying the Word of God, and I got as far as the Mosaic Law which proscribes the death penalty for adultery.” It was around 5 years later, in 1982 or 1983, when RD and VF came to him. He then specifically says, “This paper is the result of those years of study." (In it, he includes his study of adultery in all the administrations [Patriarchal, Law, Christ and Grace]). If he was conflating these two reasons, “those years” would have included going back to 1976/77. In his Forward, he gives his reason for the paper as being, “I have discovered that not everybody believes that adultery is wrong.” Everybody seems to mean Christians in general as he immediately writes after the Forward, "Many Christians are confused about adultery and fornication." _________________________ Now, comparing the above with what JS wrote six or seven years later in his Additional Comments on WayDale's Forums in May 2000, new information is given. He exposes adultery within twi’s leadership, including weirwille, which he most likely was not aware of before 1986 when he wrote the paper. - I wrote in (sic) through the summer of 1986 and handed it in to the research department in September of 1986. - As it is here in WayDale it is missing the preface and the footnotes. The preface gives some of the history of the paper and how it came to be. - Unfortunately, and history bears this out, some pretty high-powered churchmen throught (sic) the years have not really gotten the impact of what the Bible plainly says, and in this case the research seemed necessary. - My story (short version): In the spring of 1986 a girl came to me and said she had had sexual intercourse with Dr. Wierwille. (This appears to be a third impetus to investigate adultery happening specifically in twi which finally motivated JS to actually write the paper months later (while leaving out the new information about said leadership being involved.) - I started asking around to girls...Lo and behold, I talked to many women that were very candid about their sexual relations with leadership. - Perhaps the most disturbing thing about those months was the developing picture was that this was not just practical sin based on lust but rather was sin based on wrong doctrine (started by whom was not mentioned)--many of the people involved thought it was okay with God. In fact, all of the "reasons" that I wrote about in my appendix came out of the mouths of women I talked to. - On the other hand, the facts are as true as I remember after 14 years (since 1986), and I am not ashamed of them. I do not try to hide them, So, in conclusion, JS either did not know about the drugging and raping by vp as of 2000, or he deliberately decided not to mention it in his update since according to him, “The thesis is pretty simple: adultery is a sin.” Overall, WordWolf, I think we seem to agree on most points.

Nathan, So, do you want to bring back your previous question? George

Well said WordWolf.

By saying "the rest of us," you seem to be excluding JS from those who knew about vpw's crimes. Unless you know this for sure, JS is the only one who can reveal all he knew then and all he knows now - but will he? Again, only one way to find out. In 2000, his perspective was what he wrote, "On the other hand, the facts are as true as I remember after 14 years, and I am not ashamed of them. I do not try to hide them, it is just that it has not been that profitable to share them. People are still so angry and hurt over things that happened years ago. We all need to come to Christ, and let him teach us how to get healed and move on. There is a world out there that needs the Truth. " (Underlining is mine) Scriptures say the following (NASB): Eph 5:11 Do not participate in the useless deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; 2 Cor 4:2 but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in trickery nor distorting the word of God, but by the open proclamation of the truth commending ourselves to every person’s conscience in the sight of God. Paul did expose serious sexual immorality and also wasn't afraid to openly confront the apostle Peter (Gal 2:11-13) 1 Cor 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and sexual immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, namely, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. James 4:17 So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, for him it is sin. Having an invested interest in any organization so that one is not willing to expose the deep problems within that are (or were) hurting people happens all the time. Maybe I'm wrong, but doing such a thing in a religious organization for the greater good of "moving God's word" is just as, if not more, egregious.

Raf I agree with what you're saying. To me, it's simply logical that one doesn't necessarily have to believe in a god to believe in morality. We all have brains. It's simply a matter of logic not religion, to want to do unto others as you would have others do unto you. (even though a religiously moral person said to do that too...)

You know, it is possible John might answer questions about his paper and what happened way back when if any of you ask him. Here's the website contact page to reach him and his organization: Connect With Us | Spirit & Truth

CORRECT! CNN was founded. Worldwide, it was the FIRST 24-hour, news ONLY network. It was the first US news only network, 24 hour or otherwise. Now there's a bunch of 24 hour, news only networks. Seems like every major network in the US has one somewhere. ( CNBC, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, Reuters, not to mention BBC and Euronews, or business news like Yahoo Finance or Bloomberg.) Now, there's all sorts of 24-hour news channels, whether available for national or international viewing. (Where I live, there's at least one LOCAL 24-hour news channel.)

In 1985, JS wrote his Adultery paper. In 1988, JAL wrote about how this ruined marriages and damaged people. A lot of things had come to light in 3 years. When JS wrote again in 2000 with ces/stfi, the rest of us all knew about vpw raping and drugging women since so many of them had come forth. The young, idealistic guy who JS had been 15 years before now had an organization to promote where he was a top dog, and a vested interest in not looking any closer any more, even if it was dishonest. Plenty of people who have been determined to maintain the fiction that vpw wasn't a plagiarizing rapist and have made it a point to avoid all of their accounts. It makes things easier when they pretend there were never women who came forward. I'll call them like I see them- I have no organization to promote. It's not like you're buying a book I wrote at a table in the back of the theater or anything.

You are correct that they didn't immediately connect all the dots. vpw had intentionally designed a tight, secretive cadre. He knew it was a crime and knew any sane person would say it was wrong, so he surrounded himself with a blackout of news on the subject, and maintained a cover story saying the opposite. So, by reputation on the field, people would think such a claim was ridiculous. That having been said, he did sometimes let a passing comment go that gave something away. Also, as you got closer to the cadre, you started to get exposed to sex stuff- like on-grounds people and pornography "so they could minister to people better after watching the pornography." So, these guys knew about "consensual" sex, but not outright rapes or drugging where she was unconscious and he molested her. I put "consensual" in quotes because, with a power imbalance, exactly how much "consent" is there is a matter for disagreement and discussion. Miles away from anywhere else, thousands of miles from family, friends and home, and surrounded by people as indoctrinated as you, you're told this man has a direct link with God and are indoctrinated that he can do no wrong, nor would he want to. Then he starts telling you lies, like God wants you to commit adultery or fornication, and rationalizes it. In an absolute sense, she can say "No", but vpw set his little "consensual sex" game up rather cleverly. And those women likely to say something were never invited, and those women likely to be better victims- those with histories of sexual assault- were invited, and they were still monitored in case they looked ready to spill the beans. So, no, JS and RD had heard about some "consensual" sex, but not about druggings and rapes. What they did manage to hear was bad enough, and was not easy to hear due to the cadre doing their best to cover vpw's tracks. However, I think you misunderstood me about the timeline of events with JS and the Adultery paper. He gave 2 different accounts as to why he did the research, and 2 different time-frames as to how long it took. 1) He did it for his own knowledge because he realized he didn't know any verses offhand to recite to counter thoughts of fornication 2) No, he researched it because RD and VF told him that vpw requested a paper on the subject. A) So, it took him 3 years to research the paper. B) No, it was done in a few months. I doubt JS was INTENTIONALLY lying to us. I think he CONFLATED two different events, and each thing he said happened, happened. The order I see them happening and not contradicting each other nor common sense is 1A, then 2B. So, here's how I think the sequence of events went. 1) JS had the incident he mentioned, where he said "no" and sent the woman on her way, and realized he didn't have any verses in his "retemories" to recite on this subject. On his own time, and only as he felt like it, he spent the next 3 years on and off doing the research. He finished it to his own satisfaction, and went on his way. 2) Some time later, RD and VF approach him. "We were told the Grand Poobah wants you to research this. Let us know when you're done." JS now has an actual paper to write, an actual request to do so, and a request from the Grand Poobah. So, on his own time and in between everything else, he revisits old ground (it's old ground to him because he's researched it before), and in a few months during his down time, he's got a full paper on the subject. While he was writing it, he may easily have talked to a few people, sounding them out, asking what they were taught, and so on. That would account for having all the relevant "Appendices" with the "arguments" that JS had to address to be thorough and address twi's issues. He was honest, so he did so. Even when he finished it, he still had no idea it was the tip of the iceberg- or that vpw was the biggest offender- after all, if vpw ordered it written, why would he do so if it would expose him? So, JS didn't see it coming- although I think RD and VF did. So, that's how I reconcile JS's accounts. He wasn't lying, he was mistaken and conflated 2 different things. Of course, I could easily be wrong and one of those was a lie. You'll have to decide what you think was more likely. I really don't know the man. I know it's more common for the average person to be honestly mistaken than to go around lying. (In that respect, vpw wasn't "an average person." As a liar, he was an EXCEPTIONAL liar.)

With the possible criticism that I am opening up a can of worms that may not matter anymore, here is a thread about John Lynn's letters where in one of them he mentions, in part, weirwille's leading women and others astray. Once again, no mention is made of any rapes or clergy sexual abuse. (Highlighting is mine) I think it still matters today because the coverup of the "darker side" is still ongoing in twi and possibly with other ex-leaders of the ministry. John Lynn's Letters Here's a quote: "Third, sex. Now this is perhaps more sensational than the other points, but keep in mind that again the root of the problem is doctrinal error, not human weakness. More than one woman has personally told me that Dr. Wierwille taught her, verbally and by example, that sex outside of marriage is not only permissible, but profitable. Ralph Dubofsky told me that in September 1986, after a woman had come to him, he confronted Craig Martindale about having sex with her. Craig admitted it, and told Ralph that Dr. Wierwille had told him that unless he "loosened up in this category of life, he would never be a great leader or lover of God’s people." I know this sounds unbelievable, but it is true. Dr. Wierwille told people that without broadening their sexual activities beyond marriage, they’d never be able to handle the things of God." A friend of mine told me Dr. Wierwille told her he thought that "a woman gets eternal rewards for blessing a man of God like this." Craig told Ralph that there have been "thousands of times it has been done in the love of God and ministered God’s healing wholeness and deliverance to people." And I have a copy of a phone conversation on this past November 24 between Craig and a Corps grad in which he told her that there is not a straight answer from the Word on adultery, and that sex is in the category of need, like food on the table, and God supplies our needs. Where did he learn this? Not in the Baptist Church, I dare say. This esoteric doctrine has permeated the leadership structure of The Way to the end that believers all over the country know about it. This is the real reason why John Schoenheit and the others were fired. Chris Geer and the Trustees are trying to cover up for Dr. Wierwille and themselves. Here’s a good question: If it is spiritually beneficial, why isn’t it being taught publicly? If you want to, you can look up the definitions of "allegation," "accusation," "rumor," and then "fact." These statements are facts and what I have just told you about this issue is "the tip of the iceberg." I have another 3 hour tape titled "Overview of Events: 4/85-10/87" in which I do my best to chronicle the key events from the time Dr. Wierwille stopped to see Ralph in Boston en route to Scotland, up until this past fall. In it I go into more detail about the adultery issue. I believe it is important because this wrong doctrine strikes at the very heart of the Mystery, and it has ruined countless Way marriages and wreaked havoc on hundreds of other men and women." At least this last sentence of Lynn's is more than what Schoenheit admits to in his paper.