johniam

quote:But I simply don't buy the helpless, mindless victim propaganda so espoused by certain posters. Sorry. I don't either, but I think I can illustrate what I mean without even using bible verses. Example #1 - A man finds out his wife has been cheating on him for years, so he divorces her. Now, even though the woman did more to cause the divorce than the man, he still bears the same stigma of being "divorced". She didn't force him to marry her. Can he still have a good life? Sure, but not if his primary identity becomes a mindless, helpless, victim, especially if there are kids involved. Example #2 - A woman has been abused by her husband for years, so she divorces him. She has full custody of the kids. Can she still have a good life? Yes, but I know of some women in this situation who remained so bitter and angry toward men in general that by the time the kids grew up they wanted out of her life like a bat out of hell. Sure, the man in example #1 could have been the same way, but that's not being very responsible IMO.

Abigail: No, it's not OK to do adultery or the other. But everybody has the sin nature which doesn't take much to fire up. Without Christ, the OT law could not eliminate sin or the sin nature, but it probably prevented a lot of it from happening, by basically guilting the sinner into making an effort to curb his flesh appetites by obeying the commandments. With Christ, as it says, we have the law "written in our hearts" but we also still have the sin nature. I think a lot of people in TWI were deceived into thinking that if they just did the so called 5 basics (study the word, SIT, witness, ABS, and fellowship w/likeminded believers) then the Christ in them would automatically kick in and anything they wanted to do was OK. No, you still have to want to do what's right. An unbeliever who wants to act virtuously will do better than a believer who doesn't. So, for an unbeliever to commit adultery, they just have to adopt a 'if it feels good, do it' kind of approach and watch their back. By comparison, if a believer with Christ in does it, they have to deliberately ignore the Christ in them. More pressure, more responsibility. Like I said, in Matt. 5 Jesus was telling them that just because they didn't break the OT law didn't mean they didn't sin, which means they needed a savior.

Thank you very much!!! Yes, it was good. No party or presents to speak of, but got health, got family...what's not to be thankful for? Thanks, all.

Steve: If you're qualified to diagnose autism, I must be qualified to "interpret" the bible.

Raf: quote:The Old Testament didn't require a person to be sinless to cast the first stone. You are correct. The Old Testament also did not equate looking at a woman lustfully with adultery: Jesus Christ did. The Old Testament did not equate calling a person "idiot" with murder: Jesus Christ did. The Old Testament did not require a person to be sinless in order to cast a stone: Jesus Christ did. That's what it says; that's what it means. You see, John, Jesus Christ took the law and, instead of looking at it as a bunch of precepts, looked at it as a bunch of evidences of a pure heart. A person who doesn't hate won't kill. A person who doesn't lust won't commit adultery. You don't understand. You must've taken VFs 'Heart of Christian living' class. I agree that, if you don't lust, you won't commit adultery, and if you don't get angry, you won't kill. But everybody lusts and everybody gets angry. Remember, in Matt 5 Jesus was talking to his disciples. One or more of them must've thought that if they didn't commit adultery in actual fact, then they were more righteous than those who did. Not true. The message was...oh, you think you're more righteous than that guy just because he committed adultery and you didn't? Well, guess what? Every time you look at a woman and become sexually attracted to her you just committed adultery in your heart. Are you telling me you've never done that? C'mon, what are ya, gay? Don't give me that. He was leading them to the same conclusion Paul wrote down in Galatians that by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified. He didn't come to destroy the law, he came to fulfil it. quote:The Old Testament did not require a person to be sinless in order to cast a stone: Jesus Christ did. Jesus had no legal authority over those men; they were there to boldly discredit him at the behest of other Pharisees. You think they're gonna not stone her just because Jesus reminded them they weren't sinless??? If Jesus had the authority to stop them from stoning the woman why in hell did he have to run out of there at the end of the chapter??? That makes no sense at all. I haven't speculated any more than you just did. Like I said, just because the word doesn't spell something out doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.

Oldies: I agree with the plain as the nose part. I'm not trying to be mean and I'm sure you're not, but some people just need time and that's difficult on an open forum like this.

Hey, I'm all for equal time. Some of you say I have shifted the emphasis from the preverts to the prevertees. OK! Back to the preverts. David's eldest boy, Amnon. What a piece of work. Live footage of this in 2 Samuel 13. He has the hots for Tamar, his half sister. He's the firstborn, for pete's sake. He could've had her all legal according to that culture, I'm sure. But on the advice of a friend he feigns sickness, requests that Tamar be the one to minister to him, rapes her, and then just callously tells her to get lost. It took 2 yrs for justice to happen, but when it did, David was "comforted". Oh, yeah. Amnon was killed by Tamar's blood brother, Absalom. Now, if anybody's big brother or dad had tried to kill VPW or LCM, it wouldn't have been as easy, but would any of you today be sad or lose any sleep if anything like that happened to LCM? I doubt if God would...much.

Raf: You can belittle my explanation of John 8 all you want, but just because scripture doesn't spell something out doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. You haven't offered up one iota of proof that it DIDN'T happen that way. Look at it. If Jesus meant, as the KJV seems to imply, that these men had to be sinless period in order to cast the first stone, then it makes no sense. The OT law didn't require that. There were circumstances in which people could be stoned to death and those who threw the stones did not have to be sinless themselves, as if that was even possible. Those men accusing the woman were there to take a big bite out of Jesus' credibility; THAT'S what they really wanted. They didn't care about the woman getting stoned, she was merely expendable, which to me makes what they did even more despicable. The ONLY way they walk away is if they, too, were now in mortal danger. Jesus masterfully turned the tables on them. If only the scriptures didn't say it, but they do...go and sin no more.

Wordwolf: Here's part of one of my posts on the sinister page 6. quote: I will say that Jesus saw what was going on and seeing what they did to that woman may have fueled the intensity with which he spoke to those Pharisees later in the chapter. I was comparing the scenario of John 8 with TWI's abuse of women. That means the TWI abusive leadership is directly compared with the Pharisees of John 8. Where do you get that I'm defending them? Are you on drugs?

Rascal: quote:now YOU stop calling ME a liar I didn't call you a liar. That's right. I said you didn't have the right to lie. There's a difference. Wordwolf is hallucinating; I defended NO abuser, functionally or otherwise. There's a difference between addressing behavior and labeling someone's worth. If I had called you a liar that would have been labeling. I was addressing your behavior. You said I defended abusers; I did not, therefore you LIED. I just don't understand. On other posts you have said that you believe God has blessed you and your family financially and in other ways. That's GREAT! But when you post like you do on this thread, you act like you're not responsible for anything. You didn't choose to go to your first twig, they brainwashed you into it. You didn't choose to spend 10 plus yrs in TWI, they brainwashed you into that, too. What about the clothes you're wearing right now? Did you choose them or did the salespeople brainwash you? It seems to me like you just refuse to forgive yourself for the abortion...like THAT was your own personal unforgivable sin...like you think you're going to hell for SURE, now. God doesn't want you to think like that. Even if it turns out that God DOES equate abortion with murder, Paul murdered more than a few and God forgave him.

Rascal: quote:I have got to say it....It just blows my MIND that you oldies and john want to defend these amoral creeps simply because they taught you a little *word*.... Show me ONE post where I defended any abuser's actions. You also must think Jesus was defending the abusive Pharisees in John 8 when he told that woman go and sin no more. He wasn't defending them, he told them they were of their father the devil. Hardly a ringing endorsement. I have no doubt that you suffered at their hands, but that doesn't give you the right to lie.

I read that he was asked why he wrote 'Helter skelter' and he said because I like noise. Guess he still does. He's got to do a tour in summer of '06. He turns 64 in June of that year and he can do the song 'When I'm 64'.

Dave Lutz was also in Branded. He was the guy who sang 'Daddy's arms'. The 4th guy in the Victors was David Hogshead. Theophilus now goes as Delighted in him, I think. I can listen to In a gadda da vida without wanting to do drugs again, and I can listen to the singing ladies without wanting to go back to TWI.

Because I don't need to quote your stupid paragraph to make my point. quote:No matter how much you want to malign these women... More lying spin. I'm going to bed. Good night.

Raf: quote:Why are you so obsessed.... You dissect my post with that lying spin and call ME obsessed? quote:The point is it was FLAT OUT WRONG for "men of God" to do these things. The point is "sadistic leadership" per UH's opinion. Each point invites a counterpoint. That's all OM and I have done. You quit obsessing and distracting.

TWI taught us that if you're in fellowship and you just go about your business then you'll be in the right place at the right time and good things will happen. I have one concrete example of this. I was living with 2 other guys. It was Sunday. Normally, I didn't read the funnies, but this day for some "reason" I picked up the funnies and read through them. There was a section in the funnies called 'Our own oddities' in which STL residents could send in weird stories and the paper would write it out and have a cartoon illustrating it. One of the stories was a woman who found a contact lens in her eye that had been there for 4 years. So I read the funnies and that was that...or was it? Fifteen minutes after I finished reading one of my roommates came home and said he couldn't find one of his contact lenses. Immediately I knew that God inspired me to read the funnies that day knowing I'd read the bit about the contact lens. So I confidently told the roommate his lens was in his eye. Fits like a hand in a glove. Perfectly logical to me. He looked and said it wasn't there, but a half hour later he said he looked again and it was there. Is that a miracle or is it just a sign or wonder. Yes, yes, George, I know, it's a coincidence.

Insurgent: quote:maybe I'm dense, but I don't see where it says that woman was coerced into having sex with the leaders of the time, much less the pharisees. This does not appear to be the same type of situation at all. Two things... First, if they could drag her out of bed early in the morning, knowing where she was and with whom, then it probably wasn't the first time. Second, when Jesus confronted the accusers in v. 7 he meant "he that is without the same sin among you let him cast the first stone". All those accusers had sex with that woman. According to Lev 20:10 the man who commits adultery gets stoned too. So those accusers had to walk away or the woman could have ratted them out. She, like many women who entered the corps, was probably thrilled to be working in the temple around those "men of God". One thing led to another and she was a sex slave for them. If she tells her family, they would believe the men, not her, and she would have been disgraced. Sound familiar? I will say that Jesus saw what was going on and seeing what they did to that woman may have fueled the intensity with which he spoke to those Pharisees later in the chapter.

Rascal: quote:have I got it right oldies n John?? No, you don't.

NPLH: quote: For those of you blaming the women, shame shame. Sure they could have said no, and those who did paid a price. Most of the time they were black balled, some were kicked out, sent LOA and other wonderful things. Such is life... Abuse of power is almost always followed by sexual abuse if not stopped asap. Eli's sons. God blamed Eli because he restrained them not. I don't think anyone is blaming the women for the actions of an abuser. Consider the woman in John 8 who was dragged out of bed and used as a prop not only to serve the sexual lusts of some of those Pharisees, but also to get Jesus in trouble. She probably had less freedom of movement than women today. Who could she tell? She probably thought she was going to die. She had more to worry about than getting black balled. Yet Jesus said go and sin no more. He was certainly compassionate, but he didn't say this woman was nothing but a victim; he said go and SIN no more. She was not totally innocent; she wasn't retarded, she bore some responsibility. I bet she was one of the about 120 referred to in Acts 1.

UH: quote: I disagree with Oldies when it comes to assigning blame for sexual indiscretions. A "high ranking" clergy who directs himself sexually at one of his own flock, takes the full blame for what he has done. He should be taken out and horsewhipped for his crime. In no way is the woman to share in that blame. How dare anyone try to depict the woman as anything other than a victim. You make women sound like they're all mentally retarded. I don't buy this. Hmm. Sadistic leadership / "horsewhipped for his crime". Hyperbole is good if it's used in moderation. I guess.

Tom: Now that you say that, I consider the impact that Irod has had on the Marlins and now the Tigers and I wonder if he just wanted to get away from Arod. There ain't room enough for two rods on this team. If Arod is just one of those people who can't comfortably be "the man" on his team then he probably did well to join the Yankees. Jim Edmonds is like that IMO. When he was with the Angels all the heat was on him, but coming to STL first there was Mark McGwire and now Pujols so Edmonds doesn't have to bear all the pressure and he just seems happier.

Some of you need to take a look at what you're doing here. You say how terrible it was for TWI to discredit people, call them out of fellowship, call them possessed, turn their family and friends against them, etc. yet you do the same thing when someone doesn't agree with your group think. I reread all OM's posts. Not one use of the word 'liar'. But that's what he's calling everybody. Gotta be.

Weird how the Mariners win 116 games the first year without Arod and now...

Geo: You never had the guts to witness to your bosses, did you?

In '83 or so I worked for awhile at a Target store. One Saturday I was working with an intermediate supervisor I got along with OK. He was sick this day. Whenever I was with him 5 minutes wouldn't go by and he would complain about how bad he felt and how much work he had to do that day and what a bummer it was. His stomach was hurt. About an hour and a half into my shift, after hearing repeated confessions of suffering from him, I asked him 3 questions: do you believe in God? do you believe in healing? and would you like me to pray for you right now? He said yes to all three (slight pause before the third one since we were on the floor where customers were). So I prayed for him. It took less than 10 seconds which surprised him. He must've expected an excorcism. We then separated from each other and 5 minutes later he came up to me excited and said his stomach didn't hurt anymore. He said his mom was catholic and she believed in stuff like that and what did I believe in? I didn't say anything bad to him about the catholic church, I just said the bible said it was possible so I believed it. He never came to a fellowship or anything, but he was genuinely excited at least for that time. We don't know how much impact we had on people after we witnessed to them. Maybe a lot. But TWI became so focussed on getting classes together that they had no use for stories like the one above. If there is a common reason why so many of us stayed so long it's because we all got it in our heads that believing positively according to the true word was a good thing to do. I still believe it, but shame on TWI for "urinating in our slim fast" (so to speak)!