WordWolf

I almost linked back to Superman 3....

Now, how's THIS for a link?

Pootie-tang

Chris Rock

Dogma

He also downgraded "sin" into "broken fellowship".

As Raf has pointed out, "broken fellowship" is ONE CONSEQUENCE of sin,

not the same as sin.

Taken as an aggregate, the sum total of what he said on sin was FAR more in terms of encouraging

permissiveness than mourning and refraining from sin.

Not that beating people with a terror and complex over sin is a goal either,

but most Christians have a much healthier position than the 2 extremes.

We don't have to choose between "the leader can rape the women because he doesn't

condemn himself in that which he alloweth"

and

"you can never, ever make the slightest mistake or you'll be a greasespot by midnight".

We've been delivered from BOTH of those.

If you count a few people who don't post daily, he IS idolized, no qualifiers.

Let's try to keep names off the threads of people who haven't consented

to tell their stories here, though, 'kay?

========

Based on this recollection, that possible story sounds a lot more probable....

Dot:

"When I laid out some word to VPW on adultery his response was "What so ever things are pure...think on those things" He said it was MY THINKING evil is what made it evil.

He also told a small group at Emporia one night to teach their children about their bodies, "you can brush their nipple with your hand and show them how it hardens. You can show them not to be ashamed of their body reactions" Then he shared about the African Tribe where the Father broke the hymen of the daughters to get them experienced in sex to prepare them for marriage --he thought it to be beautiful.

VPW had already let me see his dark side. Sitting there I thought OH MY GOD, this is subtle but he is teaching this group that it is beautiful to teach your daughters how to have sex, it is just not accepted in our culture! He was standing behind his sex problems and setting us up to have sex with our godly "family" as well as the earthly one."

[WordWolf responds in brackets and boldface,

and trims down the original post.]

"I've talked to some of the TWI youth and there seems to be a renewed vision for TWI as they rise up. They have a fresh outlook and love for God and don't take much crap from the 'older generation'. Is TWI salvageable?"

[As someone said, that depends on one's vision of 'salvageable'.

The typical one is of the fictional Shangri-La that is often told and recounted of

the "good old days" of twi. The idea there is that a few changes will produce

the sword from the stone, and we will have Camelot once more.

The problem is that this was a FICTION that was inflicted on the legitimate Christians.

I've been going over the accounts of those who were there-including vpw himself

and lcm himself. Here's the short-form of what happened.

vpw wanted to set himself up as a minister for reasons of his own. He had rather

limited success. Then he found JE Stiles in 1953, who lead him into speaking in tongues

as a personal experience with God. Then he also found BG Leonard, who taught a

class for Christians which instructed on the Holy Spirit field.

vpw took the work of both men, placed his own name on both, and announced it was

"his" class and "his" book. Later, he added from Bullinger's books and padded

Leonard's one class into 3 classes. All of that was done that way (with his name

and removing theirs for the most part) specifically to elevate vpw's name,

and to give vpw a marketable product- classes and books.

Success was limited despite a quality product...

Until vpw found some Christian hippies. He impressed them with "his unique"

Bible knowledge (taken from the aforementioned Christians) and began putting

out feelers for extramarital sex. Some Christian hippies were impressed with the

material-and were told that vpw had a connection with God that hadn't been seen

since the First Century AD and that's where all the special knowledge was from.

So, they joined up and became the organization.

About 2 years later, vpw has seen explosive growth in the organization, and the

hippies are running classes and home Bible meetings, and having a great time.

vpw decides to run a "special" program, and starts the way corps.

(He has no background in any sort of training program, but this is what he

WANTED to do, so despite the complete failure of the first attempt-

the "zero corps"-it goes forward.) After a few years of this, vpw

then uses the corps to change things.

Now, vpw goes to the loose confederations of affiliated Christians on both coasts

(and other places in the US) and announces that they will now have a stratified,

ordered hierarchy. They will take their orders from hq (him), and all the money

will be sent to hq (him). The charismatic leaders of the early Christian hippies

of the time are kicked to the curb. Love and freedom is replaced by rules and

regulations.

Meanwhile, at hq, vpw is instilling blind loyalty to vpw when and where he can,

and singling out women to try to have sex with (willingly or no), and men to

help him cover his tracks-even if it means he has to share some of the women

with them.

All this explains why there's 2 types of experiences in twi.

There were 2 twi's in effect at the same time.

A) the Christian hippies with the Christian twi

B) vpw with the legalistic twi

Locally, some people were still with the Christian hippies and those they taught.

Those were some fantastic experiences and places and things.

At hq, vpw ran a "tight ship" that bore little resemblance to the local blessings

that had convinced people that twi was worthwhile.

Like root-rot, this legalism permeated everyplace because vpw designed it

so- where the corps went, those who learned the legalism brought it with them.

So, all the root locales had it, and the corps sent locally had it.

Want to get to what was best in twi?

You have to remove twi itself from the equation entirely.

No vpw and his name-worship.

No arrogance and "only we have the truth"-

it was never true in the EARLY days, and isnt true NOW.

If you want what was best, you'll have to follow in the footsteps of the greatest

Christians twi ever saw-

Christian hippies, all of them.

That means leave all organization and rules behind, period.

Operate as Christian hippies.

twi can NEVER operate like that-it was never designed to do so,

and vpw strangled out that method as soon as he could.

If vpw could have gotten the numbers without the love and freedom

in the first place, he would have saved the effort.

So,

the kids are salvageable-

and the people are the only thing that count there, anyway.

The DOCTRINE and TEACHING certainly isn't impressive nowadays.

That leaves the rules, legalism and arrogance.

God won't care about any of that.]

The person she asked this of, someone who's written about TWI in the past, stated,

"You say "they don't take much crap from the 'older generation.'" But the 'older generation' was

interested in reform, while the new generation has been programmed to refuse to listen to anything

these "sticks" have to say."

"TWI salvagable? Not a chance, in my humble opinion."

My response is this:

"Please allow me to chime in on your question, and K's answer, to say that I, too, doubt that there is a chance that TWI is salvageable.

Why?

Well, because there are so many of us who remember how it used to be...or at least, how we THOUGHT it used to be. It was a fantasy land for so many of us. It never really existed. But it what we thought it was was incredible.

We could have anything we wanted just by 'believing'. Everyone was 'good' if they took PFAL and went to fellowship. We aspired to be a Twig 'Leader' and it was the greatest thing. We could 'love' people with the 'love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation' and that had no sexuall connotations whatsoever. We could be a 'family'. We could 'forgive and forget' completely and absolutely. We could put things in the 'lockbox'. We all believed the same thing. We just absolutely were 'likeminded' on the 'Word' and there was no arguement. We were responsible to 'obey' leadership. If they were wrong and we 'obeyed' then we were 'covered' by God. Our thoughts were the same. Our language was the same. Wasn't it great?

No. It was not.

We now have seen how dangerous all that thinking was, and can be. There is no fantasy land that is a true place. To be safe, one MUST question. One MUST make their own decisions. One MUST see how vitally important it is to make one's own decisions based on what they have learned in life. We MUST retain our identities and not conform to a cult's mind set and habit patterns.

I loved TWI when I was in it. I was in my early 20's. The Cinderella story was still able to be true for me then. It isn't now. Not for me, not for most of us. We know too much and we have learned too much.

Good God, if you can't trust and believe in the VERY PEOPLE who represent God to you, who can you believe in? And why should we?

[bingo.

twi was based on truths assembled carefully and built on a framework of LIES.

twi as a group-and vpw as leader- deliberately deceived everyone.

At its core, twi was based on lies. Lies will NOT sustain Christians.

Add to that the unawareness of the rot at the base of the tree meant that

some people remember twi as much nicer than vpw's reality-

since their reality on the field was much nicer.

Add to that the tendency for people to recall "the good old days" as

much better than they were.

The end result is like trying to "get back" to a cartoon.

The twi they want to "get back to" never existed,

and the one that existed is not WORTH getting back to.]

Unfortunately those young TWIers may try to put together a semblence of the group we once knew but I hope to God that anyone and everyone reaches out and convinces them that it's the wrong thing to do.

How many times does one need to see utter failure before realizing something won't work? TWI had two dynamic, charismatic leaders who eventually became corrupted and toxic. Do you all really think it can ever come back and be clean and pure? There is no way. Not if the man who created it, loved it, and nurtured it himself couldn't stay pure. No one can do it. No one.

If we want that sort of thing, we must be content to waiting for the Gathering Together. It won't happen until then. It is not, in my opinion, available for a group to be completely good and idyllic in this day and age...not while we are still human. It's the human faults, the very things talked about in the bible, that keep a group from being Godly and all good. The greed. The lust. The jealousy. The struggle for power. The FEAR. And boy oh boy, if there ever was a group that was led by FEAR, TWI is that group.

Nope, as long as we are human, TWI can't be brought back...at least not in the way that we once believed it was."

What do YOU think? Can TWI be salvaged by the 'youngsters'? I'd especially love to hear an answer to this FROM some of the youngsters.

Robi

[The only way to "save it" would be to completely leave twi

en masse, and make a new, casual group like the old Christian hippies.

That would save those who left.

Any attempts to reform the organization will be hampered automatically

by inertia and the horrible history they'll be struggling under,

plus those in power will not want to hand over the loot and the power.

They have the money, the power and the women.

What possible motivation would move them to share that?

Christian virtue? THEM? Don't make me laugh.

The ORIGINAL Christians in twi coudn't do that.

Want to bang your head against a stone wall? Go right ahead.]

Adds spacing and punctuation to the post...

I am fairly certain the year was 1977.

One Friday evening after evening meal in Fellow-laborers, we were told were were going to be

'honored with a special training session', which was about to commence immediately.

Just time for one cigarette OR a trip to the restroom- take your pick.

This was not optional nor did we know about it when we signed up as has been implied on another thread regarding commitments.

The introduction was very positive and laid the groundwork for an enlightening weekend. I do not recall the title of the "class" but it sounds very much like what has been described in the discussions of "momentus".

As the sessions progressed, it became apparent we were in for an "I'm going to break you"

type of scenario that typifies many peoples perception of experience in boot camp.

The 'instructor' was well known and his initials were J.L.

There was screaming, there was face-melting and the phrase "I think" was worthy of one very severe verbal lashing. "You either know that you know or your worthless foot doesn't belong here."

One night and two long days of this worthless crap.

Highlights included being literally locked in the building and made to sit in the dark with a mandate of what seemed at the time like hours. One of our beautiful sisters who was naturally prone to shyness, snapped under the pressure. She was then molded into what I call a Stepford believer and remained that way for the rest of her commitment. She moved on to WC after graduation. (If you are reading this,kiddo, I mean no offence. I only mean that we thought you were pretty darn cool just being yourself.)

Imagine sitting in a locked building in rural America hundreds of miles from home with no way to contact the outside world and ordered to maintain complete silence. This 'class' set the precident for

what would follow.

One time we were awakened at 3 am and ordered to report to limb headquarters in 20 minutes. It was ahalf hour drive so you do the math. Again we sit in the dark for who knows how long in complete silence only to be told the program was cancelled. Get out when the sun comes up. The sun comes up and we are told revelation has changed : We are to stay but must walk a fine line if we are to continue. GOD is displeased with our past performance. It goes on and on and I hope I haven't bored anyone to tears.

Well I was definitely around in those days.

Took the class in 1976. it was cheap then. Video class.

George I may have met you way back when, Spent alot of time in Bloomington to take classes and being in Shirley for meetings.

Went to P.F.A.L. 77 and had the time of my life. Later when the Changed film came out, we went to downtown to Chicago to see it. I was surprised to see myself in it.

Went out wow in 78 to Texas. Remembering getting up and going to get gas, people were panicked to get some. None was for sale for awhile so I walked to work as well as my wow brothers. Finally gas was available but the lines were long. Didn't read the papers much to know what was going on around me in this country.

Attended the advance class in 79.....

One of our wows was scooped up and taken to be deprogrammed. Jenelda Williams. I remember hitting the airports also looking for Mo...ty. The Krishnas were big back then......

Stayed in Texas after wow and ran a fellowship. Moved back to Il. in the 80's.

All this time was good.....

some personal weird situations with leadership.....but I won't go into that.

Your choice what to go into and not,

but if you can tell us some of it while leaving names and obvious identifiers out,

it might be very useful to someone or other here.

So, if you can be persuaded to share a bit more?

(If not, hey, thanks for what you've shared so far.)

It all kinda reminds me of that guy on SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE who would say " Yeah----------Yeah that's the ticket!" and expect that would lend credability to his ruse.

Tommy Flanagan, aka the Pathological Liar, aka the Liar.

His most famous claim was his marriage to Morgan Fairchild.

For someone who prefers civility in discourse, that's an unsanitary practice of putting words in my mouth. You've got me down, Wordwolf; no use talking about it.

You presented the "orthodox vpw" position on adultery and whether or not it's ok for us to

commit it. That position follows up by dismissing all clear OT passages and all

Gospel passages as "different administration."

(And there's people here who would STILL say that-whether or not they would elect

to POST it.) Therefore, the "obvious" response from the "orthodox vpw" position

would have been dismissing the Proverbs acct, and then the Gospel acct,

as invalid due to administration change. Rather than wait for someone to make what's

the "standard" response before replying to it, I saved time and replied before the fact.

(That makes it a general refutation of the "orthodox vpw" position.)

Technically speaking, you personally had not posted that yet.

When I was saying "you", I didn't mean "Tom", I meant

"anyone holding this position"- a more general "you".

I should have made that clearer-but most attempts would still have looked

like I meant "Tom" no matter what I said.

Please keep in mind- if you're going to use the same answers vpw gave,

you're likely to get the same answers vpw would get if he were alive and posting

them here.

Healthy communication is a 2-way street-which means both of us need to be alert.

"Plausible," as in appearing to merit belief or acceptance with the operative word being "appearing." I was merely trying to point out so many years of WC did not believe what Wierwille was saying without any reasonably sounding biblical documentation, NOT that the documentation WAS sound. How many times and ways do I have to say I'm not presenting a doctrinal stance that I'm standing upon.

Even later, in response to Wordwolf's statement that we believed what we did without any biblical documentation, all I was presenting was the biblical documentation that Wierwille offered. It wasn't until later that I started talking about what I believe - much of which I got from Wierwille's teachings.

When you mentioned what was done to women, you made it clear you weren't condoning it.

When you presented vpw's "argument", you made NO such distinction. Therefore, if you were not

endorsing it, you gave the impression you were-so don't blame me for responding accordingly.

If you want a more casual discussion as to whether a particular passage may or may not mean what

vpw claimed it meant, we have those on separate threads in Doctrinal. And we phrase them more

clearly. I myself had 2 different threads a few months back, examining 2 different bizarre claims of

vpw, and I labelled them clearly-I wanted to know if there was Biblical justification for either. On each,

we had an interesting discussion. Nobody thought I was holding forth either one.

The Matrix

Correct!

For those who don't know the movie in their sleep...

that was when they went to rescue Morpheus.

They were wearing long jackets and carrying bags over their shoulders.

Weighed down with machineguns and machinepistols and stuff.

So when he reached the security checkpoint, Neo opened his

jacket and showed a BUNCH of guns as he drew.

Go, Ca D!

New movie.

"Could you please remove any metallic items you may be carrying, keys, loose change...

..Holy sh*!"

The elephant as I see it Tom...

Is that VPW won our trust and respect as a minister for God.

He then figured out a way to scripturally justify every sin and moral perversion that he chose to indulge in personally....RATHER than live honestly as a genuine Christian. Rather than minister to his congregation, as a true christian minister ....He instead chose to use his position, his authority, his knowldege of scriptures to rape, to steal, to and destroy the very people he had accepted responsibility to minister to in the name of God.

That *freedom in Christ* doctrine as I see it (as with so many twi doctrines) is a vile lie to excuse ones self from living as a genuine Christian.

There are specific reasons why adultery and fornication, as well as drunkeness and lasciviousness...etc are forbidden scripturally.....and are even listed as fruit of the flesh......one of them being that innocent parties get hurt.

What is WORSE...he taught it to others.

Tom, (and I am sorry if i am wrong) it really sounds to me like you are still trying to use wierwilles lie in an attempt to mitigate the evil of his actions and minimalise the suffering and damage that his self indulgance inflicted on innocent parties.

Is it because you really want to believe contrary to what the scriptures state uncatagorically is wrong...it is more fun to screw who you want when you want, as long as we have that handy dandy verse about freedom?

It really IS ok .... I personally just can`t handle that freedom?

You know Tom...I don`t care what people chose to be or do...but damn it ...if one wants to be a christian or a minister ...then DO it...instead of living a lie and pretending that you are. Finding excuses NOT to honor the biblical instructions given a Christian and to dismiss the fruit that is evidence of your fleshly nature is not how a genuine Christian does.

I think that this is the insidious evil of a lot of wierwilles doctrine.

I will take Blisses example a bit further.... I know instances where the kids have stolen some candy...they then try to share it with their unsuspecting brothers and sisters....some how, they seem to feel that if others are doing it too...they are not so guilty.....

Okay, there is the worship Wierwille faction that wants to preserve his image in worship-worthiness. I didn't take that into consideration. However, I do think that there are many who neither say "they think vpw's comments were appropriate," nor worship him, yet do, perhaps without even thinking about it, agree with his teachings in part. Both factor into the wrangling.

I'd say that factors in less than you're describing.

I myself agree with the some of the material in "his" teachings.

Very few people would place me on the "pro-vpw" side of discussions.

(I'd say harming me figures into the fantasies of a few "pro-vpw"ers by now...)

I believe the answer was given that people wouldn't be able to handle it. Obviously the Corps couldn't.

I believe that was the answer that was given.

I believe that this is unBiblical,

and was NOT the main reason. (Oil and falafels...)

It was an immoral and unethical doctrine. It was unBiblical and unChristian.

Therefore, it could NOT stand up to scrutiny.

Therefore, hide it.

Obviously neither Wierwille nor Martindale handled it - or people wouldn't be wishing them dead (or just feeling that way).

Proverbs 6:20-33.

20My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother:

21Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck.

22When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.

23For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:

24To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman.

25Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids.

26For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adultress will hunt for the precious life.

27Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?

28Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?

29So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.

30Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;

31But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.

32But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

33A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.

======

They didn't "handle" it because it's not "handle-able".

Next you're going to say "that's Old Testament".

So I'll check in with my Lord.

John 8:2-4, 10-11.

2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

====

He called it a SIN and said to stop.

Next you're going to say that-although it was our personal Lord that said this, there was

an administration change and now it's ok.

Romans 2:1-23

1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

2But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

3And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

4Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11For there is no respect of persons with God.

12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

17Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

18And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;

19And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,

20An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.

21Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

22Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?

23Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?

Adultery dishonours God in ANY "administration."

Galatians 5:16-21, 25

16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

====

That's the first 4 works of the flesh right there-including adultery AND fornication.

The diametric opposite of the fruit of the spirit.

II Peter 2:13-15

13And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;

14Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

15Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

=====

There's the "adultery-sin" connection again.

How about the word "fornication?"

I'll skip the before-Pentecost references to save time.

Acts 15:19-20.

19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Acts 15:28-29

28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication[/b]: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Romans 1:28-30

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

"Reprobate mind": Greek for "void of judgement", couldn't find the right thing with a GPS locator.

"convenient": Greek for "proper".

Quite a list of evil things fornication is listed with...

and they're all the result of a mind void of judgement.

I Corinthians 6:9a

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Funny how God keeps adultery and fornication in the lists of sins....

I Corinthians 6:13-19

13Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

14And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

15Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

17But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

=========

Seems pretty clear that fornication is a sin-and a sin against his own body.

Complete picture AFTER Pentecost on adultery and fornication?

"Bad things. Do not do them."

1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

7 ¶Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

Talking only about meat - not if you look at the context.

Actually, YES-talking ONLY about meat.

Behold the context!

I Corinthians 8:1-13 (the entire chapter)

1Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

2And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

3But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

7Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

8But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

=========

Looks like it's a chapter about our liberty in

EATING FOODS OFFERED TO IDOLS.

And why we shouldn't anyway.

What else is it about?

NOTHING ELSE.

Put that together with some of the places in the Word that talk about adultery or fornication where it is obviously talking about spiritual adultery and not physical (often misrepresented as all instances of "adultery" are spiritual in the bible), and you've got the beginnings of a plausable case in the working.

Obviously going to have to get really tricky-

we saw a mighty list of after-Pentecost against adultery AND fornication.

It's a "plausible case" only when you're willing to discard the MANY CLEAR verses for the

few unclear verses. Bullinger (and thus vpw) said that was a big no-no.

And it should be self-evident that Bullinger was correct.

Nothing too obvious - you have to remember that a lot of people can't handle it. It is one of those things that are there in the bible for those who dig deeper in the Word & in life.

That would be the wording used by them.

However, it's incorrect, as we can all see.

Remember you can prove anything from the Word, Wordwolf. We were being conditioned to believe anything that Wierwille told us, but we weren't complete know nothings on the Word. There had to be some plausable explanation from the Word.

This was not a "plausible explanation."

The inner circle was "conditioned to believe anything that Wierwille told us."

And those who might look this stuff up were told not to.

At least one person got kicked FROM the corps for making a corps paper on adultery.

Ever see this?

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/misc/adultery.htm

Schoenheit got canned over this.

There was an EXCUSE, a PRETEXT, but it was NOT going to stand up to scrutiny-

thus the HIDING.

Personally, I don't believe that Wierwille was consciously pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. I think he believed the stuff.

I think he believed it long before he taught it to staff and corps.

After all, he believed it when he went to the House of Acts,

since he let it slip to J1m D**p that God was ok with orgies.

Some believe he was specifically trolling for Biblical answers at

the time, and others may say he specifically brought it up because

he was trying to find PARTICIPANTS.

"A number may think that God isn't going to drop on them like a falling safe for doing what he disapproves of-

but that's a long way from 'God's ok with it.'"

Actually, those two places are not that far apart. I believe what Wierwille taught us about practical error practiced long enough turning into doctrinal error. It is the nature of the human mind to rationalize its actions. That's why I believe that Wierwille really believed what he taught. And people believed him.

I believe he believed it before ever introducing the Bible, and singled out verses that could be made

to suggest he was right. Then he hid that from the majority of people, and taught it to the most

loyal of the loyal. (He winnowed them out of the corps-which meant he was sifting from among the

loyal.) People believed him because he had "an understanding of the Bible unequalled since the

first Century Christian church."

And many fall somewhere on the continuum who never heard him. Know anyone who figures that Clinton got a raw deal because he was president & his enemies capitalized on his misfortune in being caught at what they figure is really okay as in, "C'mon, the guy got a bj - more power to him. His marraige probably sucks; leave the guy alone?"

Apparently Abraham, the father of believing, "handled" more than his wife - or looking at Lebanon & Israel, maybe he didn't.

Bingo.

20 points.

Apparently Samson "handled" lying with a woman all night & was still in fellowship with the true God to the point that he tore off the gate to the city on the way out leaving the enemy who was lying in wait to kill him staring with their mouths open.

He still had the strength. Doesn't mean he "was still in fellowship with the true God."

He was in violation of the Mosaic Law at the time.

"is someone here really thinking?" I think so. People are thinking all kinds of things (that was my point) + the guilt of those who did the deed & change their guilt into anger + the Wierwille worhippers (if you are right which I don't doubt).

It all figures in.

You almost lost me, but I think I agree.

*sends Bluez a pm*

Calling for memories in the 1977-1980 bracket now...

(snip)

"Because we're talking about RAPE? No people lining up to defend rapists? Especially child molestors - not very popular, even in prisons."

(snip)

"I'm not about defending Wierwille; I'm asking how many of us don't believe that there is some credence to what he taught about sex?"

(snip)

"Again, I'm not trying to absolve or defend Wierwille. I'm just trying to obviate some considerations that I think some people have that are fostering wrangling - but really trying to help mitigate some anger & resolve some guilt for people.

Go easy on each other."

Tom

I appreciate you wanting civility in discourse. I prefer it as well.

However, I think you're putting the emphases where they don't belong-if you REALLY

want to know what's drawing up the "sides" here.

See, this moment, no one's lining up to defend rape or rapists- but they HAVE

done so previously here.

Some people may occasionally SAY they think vpw's comments were appropriate-

but those comments aren't actually germane to the discussion, because they're

not the reason to "defend vpw" they are presented as being.

Further, I never HEARD the secret sex doctrine back then because I was not part

of the privileged few who was deemed able to keep the secret.

So, I heard the PUBLIC comments, the press release-which was

"marry so you don't end up having sex outside of marriage."

Not a problematic answer-but also a misrepresentative answer.

vpw was telling people very different messages in PRIVATE-

and telling them to keep them SECRET-inventing the term "the lockbox"

to describe hiding his secret doctrines.

So, first of all, I find SECRET doctrines highly suspect. WHY keep it secret?

Second of all, their message contradicts the PUBLIC message.

That's completely independent of finding NO PLACE in the Bible that actually

justifies the secret doctrine.

Are we conflicted and think vpw was actually right in the secret stuff?

Doubtful-is someone here really thinking that God Almighty gives us permission

to attend orgies? Or commit adultery? Or have sex outside of marriage?

A number may think that God isn't going to drop on them like a falling safe

for doing what he disapproves of-

but that's a long way from "God's ok with it."

==========

I think that focusing on whether or not vpw was justified in saying it was

fine (SECRETLY) to cheat on one's spouse and have orgies or casual sex

is a lot like focusing on the affects of the amount of oil that Hezbollah

uses on their falafels has on their policies.

That is, compared to the REAL sources of things, it's really a non-issue.

People aren't "defending wierwille" because they agree with his doctrine-

they're "defending wierwille" because they don't want their precious memories

tarnished. They're not stupid enough to say (mostly) that everything he

said was actually RIGHT- so they redirect the conversations.

vpw's rapes are no longer about a minister of God using premeditation,

selecting rape targets, raping women, and covering his tracks.

The discussion becomes

[sarcasm]

about why women didn't shoot him when he

did anything-and not owning a gun is just an 'excuse'.

Since they didn't shoot him, they must have wanted to be raped,

they must have been complicit-unless they're all lying, which of course

they all are.

[/sarcasm]

Another acceptable gambit is to portray vpw as a hero for standing up

against sexual mores of our time-which, incidentally, fairly represent

Biblical morals. Thus, a moral relativism is pushed.

Is that because they approve of moral relativism?

NO- on everything ELSE they're "fundamentalist."

The moral relativism is an EXCUSE, a PLOY.

The reason is "defend wierwille at all costs."

The reason for THAT reason is "defend my precious memories at all costs."

Is it a fear of facing the reality behind the good old days,

or is it a defense mechanism hiding actual events they're hiding from?

Each "vpw defender" would have their own reason.

But this "I want vpw treated fairly" is a conversational PLOY.

They want vpw to have carte blanche to have done all he did and

have it be ok-

because then everything THEY did in response is ok.

Personally, I prefer it when they can just come right out and admit that-

which hasn't been lately.

I wondered that, too. (The "yes-no" phrasing, anyway.)

I also wonder if you considered that nowadays some people will get offended

that you presumed all the answers would either be male or female,

with no other options. Not me, and maybe not any particular posters here

at the moment, but it's possible.

Sorry, busy here waiting for Castro to... well, you know.

So, where were we? Ah, yes...

"If you read the TV Guide, you don't need a TV"

***

"Hey, anything around here that might pass for aftershave?"

"How about some Windex, Grandpa?"

"Yeah, yeah, let me try some of that."

"You have a big date tonight, Grandpa?"

***

Unmistakeably "Lost Boys".

Got their hopes up when he mentioned getting a TV Guide,

since they figured there was a tv SOMEPLACE.

Me, I loved that "his" drawer in the refrigerator was clearly labelled.

"Old Fart".

:)

Figures someone would beat me to it.

Happy birthday, dude.

There are a few different answers to that, and they depend on a few variables.

Do you mean in the 70s, 80s or 90s?

Do you mean "grew up in the home of members",

or "grew up living near a 'Root locale' at home",

or "grew up AT a Root locale as Family Corps or staff or whatever" ?

The answers varied depending on those.

This quote comes to mind although I don't remember who is credited with saying it (according to my sources lots of people have been - so let's not get another thread started)

"The only thing necessary for evil to exist is for good men to do nothing."

SOOOO no matter how good certain members of the BOT seemed, no matter who your favorite leader was, IF he or she saw the evil coming and did nothing they contributed to it.

That's attributed to Edmund Burke.

However, I can't prove he actually said it.

Your point, however, was made.

Yeppers!

That's why I insist on giving them money if they insist on leaving the tracts with me. Raf's got some JW's in his family, I think. He can validate what I'm saying. :)

Raf and I used to trade stories. (While we were in twi, of course.)

I was raised Roman Catholic, he was raised Watchtower Society.

Fun for us at the time, but if you'd overheard us, you'd have sworn

that between the two of them, they were going to destroy Christianity

AND Western Civilization. But we both picked up a lot about the other

group. I had the unfair "advantage" of copies of "Babylon Mystery Religion"

and "The Two Babylons" on hand.

So, yes, he told me back then that this is how the tracts get financed.

Well, during lcm's reign, "not esteeming any day above another" - hence no Merry Christ is Dead, no Ashteroth celebration... He probably would have done away with celebrating anything at all except for perhaps HIS birthday. :blink:

That's "Babylon Mystery Religion."

Ralph Woodrow's followup "the Babylon Connection?" is a must-read--

it's the same writer explaining why "Babylon Mystery Religion" was full of error.

And "Babylon Mystery Religion" is the user-friendly version of Alexander Hislop's

"the Two Babylons", which it properly footnotes and endnotes.

lcm probably never learned all the errors were errors.

They work for free, too. They go door to door out of compulsion, NOT because of free will or because of the "abundance of the Word" living in their soul. ;) They even have to buy the tracts and those magazines they leave on your doorstep. :(

Yes, AFAIK,

their salvation is dependent upon works, and is in hazard of revocation if they stop.

Further, they buy the tracts and occasionally get a donation to recoup the expense.

While perusing the latest "Watchtower" magazine that was left on my front stoop this afternoon.................(yes, I avoided opening the door on purpose.........)

I noticed how similar the "lingo" and "phrases" they used to describe and teach their beliefs. I was getting a little hot under the collar. I really felt as if I was reading the latest way bag.

The title of the first article was entitled "A Sure Guide to Happiness". But the topic was "the dead are dead".

:blink:

It was weird.

It went through all the typical "christian" arguments for folks being in heaven now, and gave it their argument. I think I was reading a ''mini"version of Are the Dead Alive Now.

Quote" the effects of death have left them lifeless in the grave."

So we got, Jesus Christ is not God from them, and the dead are not alive.

No, vpw did not rip that one off of the Watchtower Society.

He ripped it off Bullinger, who wrote books like

"the Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?"

(Compare to "Are the Dead Alive Now?" which even uses the same question-format in the title.)

http://philologos.org/__eb-rml/

I don't know who Armstrong stole it from.

As for JCING, it's been suggested that was from Leonard.

yeah

mine looks cheap next to johnny Lingos now.

thanks .

ever see a pink pond before?

Your avatar is FINE.

If you want a DIFFERENT avatar, though, there's nothing wrong with getting a new one.

Why all the airtime?

Don Henley said it long ago....

"I make my living off the evening news Just give me something-something I can use

People love it when you lose, They love dirty laundry

Well, I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here I just have to look good, I dont have to be clear

Come and whisper in my ear Give us dirty laundry

Kick em when theyre up

Kick em when theyre down

Kick em when theyre up

Kick em when theyre down

Kick em when theyre up

Kick em when theyre down

Kick em when theyre up

Kick em all around

We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who Comes on at five

She can tell you bout the plane crash with a gleam In her eye

Its interesting when people die- Give us dirty laundry

Can we film the operation? Is the head dead yet?

You know, the boys in the newsroom got a Running bet

Get the widow on the set! We need dirty laundry.

You dont really need to find out whats going on

You dont really want to know just how far its gone

Just leave well enough alone, Eat your dirty laundry

Kick em when theyre up

Kick em when theyre down

Kick em when theyre up

Kick em when theyre down

Kick em when theyre up

Kick em when theyre down

Kick em when theyre stiff

Kick em all around

Dirty little secrets, Dirty little lies

We got our dirty little fingers in everybodys pie

We love to cut you down to size, We love dirty laundry

We can do the innuendo, We can dance and sing

When its said and done we havent told you a thing

We all know that crap is king, Give us dirty laundry!"