LG

Wow! I never thought of that before. Truly amazing, original insight, Rafael.

What The Hay, Regarding ?fornication,? Ezekiel 16 might be enlightening. (Think ?metaphor.?) Regarding this: ?They aren't out to help anyone see any better because that's certainly not their intent - it's only to condemn.? Matthew 23 and similar passages might be enlightening. Regarding Shaz's distinction between living in sin and committing sin, I don't pretend to speak for her, but I think I understand what she meant. She clarified herself somewhat, when she said, "I think the Bible disqualifies VPW from being the Man of God for Our Day and Time because of his living in sin and for sin, not because he committed sins. Living "for sin" is a pretty strong indictment of a "man of God."

Exactly. Methinks you missed Rafael's point, and my irony.

What was that the Pharisee's said unto Jesus - We be not born of fornication ... (John 8:41) It's remarkable to realize exactly where the idea of holiness stemming from the ideal of sexual purity had started. It wasn't started by our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather by some legalisitic Pharisees. Now I would say that is pretty revealing as to having an understanding of exactly where some people are coming from - spiritually speaking. Have you ever bothered to read the context of "We be not born of fornication;" say even just the next six words? It has nothing to do with sexual purity. Yep, Wierwille ignored "in the verse" and "in the context," in order to make it seem that the Bible says something it doesn't say. He did that a lot, both in PFAL and elsewhere.Speaking of ignoring context, both in the paragraph from which a quote came, and the paragraph preceding it, Galen, whom you quoted, did just that when he quoted shazdancer. She specifically said that she wasn?t talking about day-to-day mistakes, and clearly indicated that she wasn?t talking about sexual impurity, such as adultery. She listed repeated rape, cruelty, verbal abuse, drunkenness, and plagiarism. Those, and other things Shaz could have listed, but didn't, are not characteristics of what the Bible would call ?holy men,? but rather, are characteristics of what the Bible would call wicked men, false prophets, serpents, hypocrites, ?like unto whited sepulchres?, etc. If someone wants to believe that Wierwille?s plagiarized works and fraudulent claims are the ?Word of God?, that?s fine with me. But, if the Bible is the standard, then Wierwille was no ?holy man of God.?

I was completely unconvinced by Lorna, but your insightful, original thoughts have persuaded me, Rafael.

Galen, Following a "Minister Manual" of prescribed services is not anything like plagierism.

Lorna, I notice that you give a reference for every scripture you quote, and a link for the article you quote. You even give a link for the site that led you to the article. This leads me to suspect that you don't buy your own argument. Plagierism is, essentially, presenting someone else's words or thoughts as one's own. That is not the same as learning from others. It is not the same as using someone else's words or thoughts, but properly crediting them. I think you know that.

I had never looked at this thread until today, when I saw this, posted August 1. Wave back.I guess I’ll have to weigh in. I was never under the spell of PFAL. I was under the spell of the people of TWI and the illusion of love I desperately wanted to believe was real. I never believed much of TWI’s spiel, but I tried to, because I would have happily believed a delusion if that would have made the illusion I chased real to me. As for PFAL: The very first thing that struck me was Wierwille’s claim that the Bible was either God’s Word from Genesis through Revelation, or it wasn’t God’s Word anywhere. I knew a little about how the Protestant canon came about, and I knew that wasn’t logical or necessarily true. The next thing I noticed was Wierwille using individual verses out of context to support points they didn’t support. I noticed a lot of other problems, as well, but I quickly learned to keep them to myself. (The “love” cooled quickly when I mentioned them to others.) All of that was the first time I took PFAL. As time went on, those things became more problematic for me, as did many other things. However, the illusion was more attractive than reality, so I continued to pursue it for years. Finally, I decided I’d had enough. I’ll take reality, with all its ugliness.

Georgio, A problem with every "creationist" site I've seen is that they misrepresent science, sometimes knowingly so. A problem with some "evolutionist" sites I've seen is that they come across as denigrating all religious faith. I suggest you take a look at this site, Origins - Theistic Evolution. It seems to balance Christian faith with an honest look at science. A Google search would turn up similar sites, but I mention this one because it includes many links to material that may interest you.

Neither the theory of evolution nor any other scientific theory is contradictory to belief in the Christian God or any other creator. The only contradiction I've seen is created by people who say they believe in and worship an all-powerful Creator God, but presume to bind Him by and to strict adherence to their particular interpretation of a few paragraphs that were written to relatively ignorant nomads, several thousand years ago.

If there were such a meeting, it would have to have been at ROA '75, at Lima. It seems to me that you've made quite a big deal about the grifter's written works, with a secondary emphasis on his tape recorded words. Now you want people to excuse him on the basis of your provably faulty memory? Ha! (Even if your memory were correct, which it isn't, Just Thinking's reply would apply.)PS. The above doesn't indicate that I think TWI had legal liability for their teachings. Sometimes gullible fools, like most of us were, just have to take their lumps and go on, hopefully a little wiser.

If you like, I can define "screwy" with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision, then go on to give a 500 word "literal" rendition (according to screwy usage) of "I had so much waybrain that I..." Or I could give a 1500 word "expanded" version.

I've heard tell of people with so much waybrain that they couldn't allow others to express themselves, say in a thread about waybrain, for example, without insisting on "accuracy" all the time. Oldiesman, "waybrain" is not an exact term. It's a loosely-used, figurative term. There is no "exactly what is waybrain?". It means whatever it means to the person using it. Most folks here mean about the same thing, the screwy ways of thinking that being involved with TWI encouraged. That other groups have screwy ways of thinking that are more or less typical of group members (followers, associates, whatever) doesn't change anything. People who spent much time in close involvement with TWI adopted some screwy ways of thinking, to greater or lesser degrees. Whatever that means to anybody who wants to use the term is "waybrain."

Wenceslas (Wenceslaus) was a Bohemian Duke.

I don?t care much for most non-religious Christmas songs, especially the ?cute? ones. One of my favorite songs of any type is ?O Holy Night.? ?Silent Night? is one of the most beautiful, peaceful songs ever penned. I like it best with one Soprano and simple accompaniment. ?Ave Maria? is another, but is best by a full choir and orchestra. I also like ?Angels We Have Heard On High? and ?Hark The Herald Angels Sing?, as well as several others. One of the two greatest musical experiences of my life was a Midnight High Mass, with a wonderful choir, singing beautiful carols, preceding it. That was over 35 years ago, and my memories of it still move me. I had to come back and add "Adeste Fideles" (Come All Ye Faithful, but it's not quite the same in English). [This message was edited by Long Gone on December 08, 2003 at 15:22.]

You faith blaster, George. :)-->

Oldiesman, Juedes doesn't say that Wierwille copied 70% of RTHST from Stiles; he says "from other authors [plural]." Your ignorance of those other authors, including Bullinger and Leonard, doesn't make Juedes' statement "wild."

Oldiesman, The judge didn't say that Martindale committed rape. He didn't rule on facts at all. He ruled on which counts would go to trial (civil trial, not criminal).

Regarding this: Those are not conclusions of the judge. They are allegations the Allens made, that the judge was going to allow to proceed to trial. He dismissed two other allegations, not because he ruled that they weren't true, but because determining their truth and assigning blame, if due, was not the province of the court.

Skinned. Any of the more than one ways will do. (Just kidding.) I don't care for cats but I don't mind other people having them. What I do mind is that my town has a leash law for dogs but cats can run around loose, which causes all sorts of problems.

I've only spent 29 sleepless hours trying to master the new information in this thread, so forgive me if my questions seem foolish. Larry, you wrote: Does this explain the spiritual significance of that incident? Zixar, is there a hidden meaning in this? Ex10, concerning your mastery of forgetfulness and unremembrance... I have noticed that most people don't remember their infancy and remember very little from their early childhood. Did Jesus' command to become as little children motivate you to master forgetfulness? Is that what is meant by a "second childhood?"

We're in agreement, Abigail. The point is that "rape" is not an overstatement.

Being from Texas, I decided to see how Texas law addresses the matters brought up in this thread. (I?m aware that Wierwille was not subject to current Texas law and not subject to prior Texas law, except when he was in Texas. That?s not the point.) In Texas, there is no crime called ?rape.? What I earlier called ?forcible rape? is called ?aggravated sexual assault.? That is a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for 5 to 99 years, plus a possible fine of up to $10,000.00. What Wierwille has been accused of is called ?sexual assault,? which is a felony of the second degree, punishable by imprisonment for 2 to 20 years, plus a possible fine of $10.000.00. If a person found guilty of a second-degree felony has a prior felony conviction, the punishment is the same as for a first-degree felony. I won?t quote the entire relevant section of the Texas Penal Code but anyone interested can look it up HERE. I will quote this from 22.011(b)(10): ?(b) A sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if: (10) the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person's emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman's professional character as spiritual adviser.?

This is puzzling. You addressed a post specifically to me. I replied. No more, no less.

Laleo, ?This is precisely why it is important to call things what they are so that people CAN understand the effects. When testimonies of abuse are quickly labeled as something which they are not, it has the effect of sensationalizing and minimizing the event rather than exposing it for what it is.? Are we reading the same threads? The labels that are quickly applied, that minimize the abuse, are ?sexual harassment?, ?adultery?, ?illicit sex?, ?infidelity?, etc. Very seldom does anyone initially call it ?rape.? Rather, they say that it is like rape, which it is. In fact, much of it is indistinguishable from rape, unless the type of force used defines rape. ?I think there is far more power in the actual accounts of VPW's abuse, then in the clever (and sometimes overstated) labels that people sometimes attach to it.? Clever labels? Like ?adultery?? That ?clever label? is what prompted Excathedra to start this thread. EVERY SINGLE TIME someone gives an account of abuse on these forums, people come along and label it as something much less than what it is. ?Furthermore, Long Gone, your long indictment of Oldiesman was premised on a simple misunderstanding he had of what was written in one of the posts.? No it wasn?t. It may have been ?a simple misunderstanding? on his part, but not about ?one of the posts.? He has repeatedly treated specific statements as general ones, and qualified statements as absolutes. He has repeatedly minimized real examples of abuse, by proposing ?possible? examples that might not be abuse and saying that people were making sweeping, overstated claims that they never made. I cited some examples. ?He has never said or implied anywhere that anyone is ?playing the victim.? What would make you think that other than your own misunderstanding of what he is saying?? You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. My last post was neither addressed to nor about Oldiesman. ?Also, I'm curious. Did you read the full article that was linked at the beginning of this thread? I won't offer a critique lest I get yelled at for being too ignorant to know how to write one, but I'll say this: The article was not an indictment against aggressive sexual predators, but against male sexuality.? If that?s what you got out of it, you completely misunderstood it.