Charity

Does it matter anymore? So your perspective was asking if my questions about the adultery paper mattered anymore which obviously implies that it did at one point. My questions were the result of the discussion WordWolf started when he began this thread about the adultery paper. You didn't ask him at that time "if it mattered anymore?" My perspective is that it is important that the truth, from beginning to end, around the doctrine and practice of what happened sexually within twi and the eventual exposure of it is fully made known by the leaders. Both John Schoenheit and John Lynn wrote about the adultery and "fornication" but didn't always (if at all) include the facts about vp's rapes and drugging of some of his victims as well as the abortions and the hurt that the clergy sexual abuse by leaders towards those they were responsible to oversee had caused. Why was that? John Lynn has passed away, but John Schoenheit continues to be active in his biblical ministry. Will he ever talk about what he knew or didn't know about the darker side of what was going on back then? One way to find out. I'll send his website an email asking about this and see if he replies back.

Thank you for your post. I find your speculation that RD and VF had been untruthful to JS about weirwille wanting them to study adultery more likely to be the case than weirwille actually having asked them to do so. It does seem unlikely, though, that JS (believing weirwille wanted to know more about the topic) never communicated directly with him concerning his study at some point during those 3 years. If he had, RD and VF’s dishonesty would most likely have been exposed. Who knows, but the story still doesn't seem to make complete sense. The other thing is that you mentioned RD hearing about “rapes.” The paper, however, was only about adultery apparently happening between consenting adults – not on rape or clergy sexual abuse. The Additional Comments told of a woman having had sexual intercourse with wierwille and of “many women that were very candid about their sexual relations with leadership.” The girls he had spoken to who he knew always got to ride on the motor coach, fly on Ambassador 1 and get "back room" duty instead of housekeeping or grounds, apparently never claimed their experiences were not consensual. JS wrote that what he learned during those months of interviewing women was that “many of the people involved thought it was okay with God.” Near the end, he does mention a female who had been hurt by the “sex stuff .” From the context of the article, this minimizing term would only have been about adultery – not rape or abuse. By 2000, Schoenheit, who knew plenty about the problem with adultery within the leadership, still seemed to have known nothing about the rape and abuse by vp since he wrote, “The Way International and Dr. Wierwille did a lot for me, and I will always be thankful for that. Yes, they caused me some pain and heartache, but the foundation of the Word that was built in my life in The Way has an inestimable value.” But then again, he was promoting in his Additional Comments the "really great stuff" he, Lynn and Graeser were doing with CES. Also, he did say that people who were angry and hurt over things that happened years ago needed to...move on. Again, would he have said this if he knew about the rapes and CSA?

Are you questioning my right to ask the questions? If it doesn't matter to you Rocky, then just say so.

What are you talking about "Birth Death Certificate?" That would be silly.

Since wierwille relied a lot on Bullinger, here is a website for The Complete Companion Bible. However, any discussion of Bullinger's work that do not apply to vp's literal translations according to usage would be off topic for this thread. I just sent it along as an additional resource. The KJV Companion Bible in PDF Online

Unfortunately, my copy of your book was accidentally ruined when my water bottle soaked it while in my bag, so I can't refer to it. John S. wrote, "In 1982 or 1983 Rev. Ralph Dubofsky and Rev. Vince Finegan came to me. Dr. Wierwille had asked them to do some work on the subject of adultery...This paper is the result of those years of study." In his Additional Comments, he said, "My paper is quite accurately presented here in WayDale. I wrote in through the summer of 1986 and handed it in to the research department in September of 1986." Do you or anyone else know more about why vp wanted such a study done? Was he having doubts about his ideas about adultery being accurate? Or was he counting on the study exonerating him? Did the fact that he was having serious health issues at the time have anything to do with this request? I ask because according to WIERWILLE'S CERTIFICATE OF DEATH, John Juedes wrote about wierwille wearing an eye patch and that ,"Witnesses at the Rock of Ages 1983 reported that Wierwille's speech began to slur during a hymn-sing, and he had to leave the stage during a teaching because he was having trouble communicating. Although rumors suggested Wierwille had two strokes, no specifics were generally announced." Also, why did it take JS around 3 years to study the topic and then begin to write it and hand it in after wierwille's death? That was a long time to keep him waiting, even denying him the privilege of actually getting an answer. Did he possibly share his results with vp privately before his death. Finally, is John Schoenheit still willing to talk about the paper and answer questions?

Thanks WordWolf for filling in the blanks of what I remembered hearing.

Thanks for the belly laugh waysider .

In light of the “Blast from the Past” thread in About the Way, this thread in the Atheism subforum is a way to ask rhetorical questions about topics like clerical sexual abuse. A rhetorical question (RQ) is asked to make a point, rather than get an answer. When it comes to God, many questions are rhetorical because only God knows the answers which he may or may not reveal in the afterlife which is not helpful in the hear and now. One of the heinous part of CSA is the cover up that is done within the religious group (like what happened in twi). CSA became well-known in the cases of the Catholic Church scandal, and the Julie Roys website below gives examples of this happening in protestant churches as well. Catholic Church child sexual abuse scandal Julie Roys There are now laws, and often civil lawsuits, against those involved in cover ups because of the seriousness of turning a blind eye to victims in order to protect the church/ministry instead of the flock. So here's my RQ. If it's so important to hold humans responsible for not immediately revealing abuse so the abuser can be stopped and held accountable, what about Christ? How is it that as head of the church who sees all is not being held responsible as well? Christians might consider this an absurd question because the spiritual world does not work in the same way as the physical world. God's absolute judgments come in another life. However, I think as a rhetorical question, it can make the point that this problematic scenario of Jesus being the head while abuse is frequently occurring is an impossible one since Jesus, as the resurrected son of God, cannot even be proven to exist (that is outside of the claims of the bible and claims are not evidence). So, what seems to be left is the continued abuse of children and adults under Christ's watchful eyes where questions as to why this is must become rhetorical ones because they simply can't be answered in this lifetime.

I get this which makes Schoenheit's "Forward" interesting to read. "In 1982 or 1983 Rev. Ralph Dubofsky and Rev. Vince Finegan came to me. Dr. Wierwille had asked them to do some work on the subject of adultery. Ralph and Vince wanted to know what I knew and if it would help them. I was genuinely surprised at how little I knew about the subject from the Word of God. This paper is the result of those years of study." "As I struggled to control my mind, I realized that I did not have a scripture to grab onto for support. I literally was not completely positive as to what the Word of God had to say on the subject." This was understandable, because after all, vp never taught it in the Christian Family and Sex class so how were people supposed to know.

That's where the reasons given in the Appendices come in. What should have been so obvious became overshadowed by deceit, lies and powerful positions in twi.

"the spiritually mature can handle anything and that anything done in the love of God is okay." This also serves as a form of gaslighting in that if a victim does feel bad afterwards (instead of being "blessed" for having been chosen by the man of God), she has to see herself as spiritually immature for not having enough love of God in the renewed mind. It's called shifting the blame. I've read something along the line that if a victim of vp couldn't deal with it, she would be kicked out of the ministry for some made-up reason and then lies are told about her being "off the word" so others will want nothing more to do with her.

It seems very unlikely that Mrs. Wierwille was present at that pj party. "He played a porn video followed by a talk on how a Christian can so renew their mind that this stuff wouldn't bother them, the spiritually mature can handle anything and that anything done in the love of God is okay." I've heard that he would tell a victim that she was chosen because she was spiritually mature enough to be with him. And then, in order to keep his abuse secret, he would also say to keep what happened between them in a lock box because there were others who were not spiritually mature enough to handle knowing about it. OMG, Holy ...., and twi today still honors this evil man as the founder of their ministry.

T-bone's posts above were long so I edited them to get to the pajama party. (You can search "pajama" and his full posts come up quickly.)

Thankx

Looking back on my last post above, I did translate what you had said in an amplified way which was, I'm sure, more harsher than what you were intending. I was being a bit arrogant and condescending . I'm sorry for this. I'd like to reply differently by saying "I think it is bewildering that God would possibly leave believers guessing/wondering/being worried/fearful about whether they will go to a place called heaven or a placed called hell for all eternity. Also, I understand that you don't have an answer to my question. No one does, so I suppose that makes it a rhetorical one. You're right, the Ford cannot explain Henry just as people, on their own, cannot explain what God means when he says something. I think it is up to him, though, to clearly define his will so as to remove all doubt as to whether once saved/always saved or staying faithful to be saved is correct. This is one reason I became skeptical of the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient god.

I completely agree that the grooming done and advances made on believers were fruit of vp's rotten tree which was rooted in his deviant interpretation of verses he'd cherry picked. I know of a top twi leader who had stopped abusing one female by saying he wasn't sure that what "they" were doing was biblically correct solely as an excuse so he could start up with another female. In an attempt to normalize his lax/corrupted views on things as you mentioned above, I remember reading from a poster here how vp would have pajama gatherings where teens were present and his behavior at times became inappropriate. I'll try to find the post.

Like their leader VP, men (and some women) used those reasons above to get what they wanted leaving behind darkness and brokenness. I saw the darkness, I saw the darkness No more safety, no more light Now I’m so shameful, no trusting in sight Thanks to him, I saw the darkness

Your post was helpful, especially what I highlighted in blue. Idiot is what a stupid person is called. Being so judgmental is where arrogance (having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities) and being condescending (having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority) comes in. Someone else recently shared with me the idea that they are also not responsible for what other people believe so I guess it's been confirmed for me that I shouldn't either . Lesson being simply to share why I no longer believe in the god of the bible and how that has made my life better.

After almost a year, I got to revisit the links above thanks to your post.

I thought Catholics had to take their doctrine from what the current Pope, when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, has to say. Once saved/always saved is not one of those doctrines. Your reference to "many mysteries," I think is their doctrine around salvation.

The "that" in your reply is referring to whether once saved/always saved is true or whether only those who "remain faithful" will be saved. So, you think God purposefully left believers to be guessing/wondering/worried/fearful about whether they will go to a place called heaven or a placed called hell for all eternity. I don't get why an all-loving God/Father would do that to his children. Why wouldn't he make it absolutely clear how to be saved without there being any contradictions within "his word?"

What makes Christian Love Different John Piper makes an impressive argument in this article for Christian love, clearly showing it as being superior to "secular" love. He is definitely promoting an "in group" and an "out group." It's interesting, though, that he does not call it "agape/agapao" love, but the verses he quotes do. The article is in response to a question he was asked which was, "What would you say is the difference between the kind of love that is produced in the Christian’s heart for others through the new birth (1 John 4:7; 1 Peter 1:22–23), compared to the charitable and often self-sacrificial love that we often see demonstrated in the world among non-Christians? How would you explain this difference?” His opening paragraph says, "The difference between secular love and Christian love is that secular love is not rooted in the cross of God’s Son, and is not sustained and shaped by the power of God’s Spirit, and is not acted for the glory of God the Father. So the source of it is different, the sustaining power of it is different, and the goal of it is different." What he writes in this link is backed by other preachers and is what I believed all my life as a Christian. *************** On the other hand, another ministry (Christianity without the Religion) says something different. Do only Christians Love with Agape (1 John 4:16) Brad Jersak writes, "The idea that imagines agape love (the self-giving love that comes from God) is the sole property of Christians is a rather horrendous misinterpretation of John’s point. Indeed, such a notion is itself uncharitable (i.e., not agape) in its contempt for all those who have laid down their lives for the other, even apart from faith in Christ. It is disturbing to imagine the implications of such superior-than-thou thinking that diminishes the quality of love in those who have not joined our insiders’ club." *************** Since you have Christians disagreeing on a doctrine, I'll look outside of the bible to learn about agape (which I just learned began to be used as an English word in the 1600's meaning unselfish giving). One website I found is Agape Love: The Art of Loving Unconditionally . I'm also looking into the recommended writings of Scott Peck and his "Road Less Traveled" trilogy. Will they reach the height of how Piper describes Christian love? I don't know, but it doesn't really matter, because I don't accept there is evidence for God, let alone "the cross of God's son. I just want to override the parts of my mind that still holds onto this emotional, but irrational, concept.

I'm interested in the phrases you used above (highlighting is by me) because it implies a concern you have about the way an atheist might be communicating their viewpoint - perhaps with a little too much conviction/boldness/emotion or with a condescending/judgmental tone. (This is obviously an assumptions on my part). I ask because I am an atheist posting on a board with Christians and often find it a challenge in how to express myself. (I find Raf walks this line more effectively than I do.) What I mean is that as someone who spent decades as a Christian, steeped in the study of the word, there are times when my posts as an atheist are simply about questioning the doctrines in the bible, and then there are times when I give a knee jerk reaction to a post or outright denounce what the bible says. I try to keep the latter to threads on the Atheism subforum but am not always successful. A recent example of reacting is how I replied on the About the Way forum to something JoyfulSoul had written where I assumed he meant supernatural stories that are recorded in the bible. JS - Jesus was accused of everything. We have accounts of supernatural stories. There are a million more. My reply - What proof was there of any of them being supernatural - because a book said they were? Anyway, getting back to my opening sentence, can you share your thoughts explaining the phrases you used.

Sometimes, I ruminate on a post after I've sent it as to whether my thoughts and intentions were clear. This is one of those times. I think the post above can be read as me getting honest with myself concerning my beliefs about God and his promises. I think it could also be read as me implying that those who do not agree with my conclusion are not being honest with themselves. (I also think it's possible that nobody even cares about what I wrote.) So to clarify, the questions (all except the one stated in the conclusion) were meant to invite discussion. As for the conclusion, I'd like to change to read: The honest thing for me was to conclude that an untrustworthy God cannot be a real God.