well i don't know, i'm just posting anywhere and everywhere
but the most degrading people i ever met (you know, toward women) was the man of god of our day and time and the man of god of gartmore's day and time.....
From the PFAL session where VPW stated that "all of the women in the kingdom belonged to the king" to "Principles of a Believing (Believer's?) Family" TWI has taught that women were placed upon earth by God to serve men, and their two chief responsibilities are to keep their mouths shut and their legs open.
My least fond memories are of LCM's rants blaming wives for turning their husbands away from himself and his wonderful truths by their "itchy-bytchy comments" and that men needed to get their wives in line.
A lot of women have posted here that TWI persuaded their husbands to leave them, saying they were possessed or some such nonsense. Only the women who were on the inside of their perverted little world had any power, and heaven knows what or who they had to do to get it.
In Pfal there was that little section on VP leaarning how to SIT, the minister that lead him into tongues put his wife in her place--and VP respected him for that.
But did the wife really do something terrible? Seems to me she wanted to know how long he would be...Really did she deserve to be smacked down?
In Pfal there was that little section on VP leaarning how to SIT, the minister that lead him into tongues put his wife in her place--and VP respected him for that.
But did the wife really do something terrible? Seems to me she wanted to know how long he would be...Really did she deserve to be smacked down?
"the Way, Living in Love". vpw is telling, in his own words, some stories.
==================
pg-199.
"Then a woman came over to me, and said, 'I think God sent a man here to meet your need.
Meet me at 9am.' I thought,
'Women never tell the truth.' "
pg-200.
"At lunchtime Stiles came in with his wife and the pianist. I just remember thinking to myself,
'There aren't going to be any women around when I get the holy spirit.'
I was just watching and waiting. Lunch was kind of light talk- we talked about Oral
Roberts, the Holy Spirit, lots of stuff. When we were done, I picked up the check, and
then Stiles turned to his wife and said, 'Honey, I'm going with VP.' She said something
to him like, 'How long will you be?' And he said,
'That's none of your business.'
That was it, and my opinion of him as a man went up 99 percent.
His stature increased in my eyes. just from the way he handled her."
In Pfal there was that little section on VP leaarning how to SIT, the minister that lead him into tongues put his wife in her place--and VP respected him for that.
But did the wife really do something terrible? Seems to me she wanted to know how long he would be...Really did she deserve to be smacked down?
It seems like all he really had to say was 'I don't know'.
And, for anyone who thinks being married to John is a fate worse than death (but not totally off topic) I had a situation recently in which the believer I had asked to housesit for us tried to 'reprove' me with the Word on the subject of what it meant to be 'the keeper of the home'. Before he got three sentences into his tirade, John shut him up with, 'Jean works very hard to keep the house as clean as she can, and if you don't like it, feel free not to come here again'. The gentleman stamped out with a very red face and has since sent me a very nice letter of apology. I just thought I would throw that out there for anyone who might think that John degrades women.
Like it or not, the Way taught (or teaches) the bible and the bible teaches that the wife be subject to the husband (Eph 5: 22-24).
After all we once were participants in a BIBLICAL group who believed the BIBLE is the word of God?
Nobody was forced to do this and we consented to it, year after year.
This does present a problem for the wife if she does not want to live like that. Of course it does. The whole damn bible presents a problem if one doesn't want to live like that.
But I am still of the opinion that folks should stop blaming twi for something that the bible says right there in plain English.
I would add, I think husbands who love their wives as Christ loved the church are worthy of the wives submission.
Like it or not, the Way taught (or teaches) the bible and the bible teaches that the wife be subject to the husband (Eph 5: 22-24).
After all we once were participants in a BIBLICAL group who believed the BIBLE is the word of God?
Nobody was forced to do this and we consented to it, year after year.
This does present a problem for the wife if she does not want to live like that. Of course it does. The whole damn bible presents a problem if one doesn't want to live like that.
But I am still of the opinion that folks should stop blaming twi for something that the bible says right there in plain English.
I would add, I think husbands who love their wives as Christ loved the church are worthy of the wives submission.
I agree with most of your points (especially the last one) but I will point out that the Bible exhorts wives to be subject to her 'own' husband, not every man who comes along.
In TWI as I knew it, the wife was subject to her husband...and the husband was subject to the Fellowship coordinator, the branch coordinator, the limb coordinator, the Region coordinator, and any other coordinator that could get their nose in there.
In TWI as I knew it, the wife was subject to her husband...and the husband was subject to the Fellowship coordinator, the branch coordinator, the limb coordinator, the Region coordinator, and any other coordinator that could get their nose in there.
There was a time when that was true, but John was usually quick to tell anyone who offered unasked for advice to mind their own business.
In TWI as I knew it, the wife was subject to her husband...and the husband was subject to the Fellowship coordinator, the branch coordinator, the limb coordinator, the Region coordinator, and any other coordinator that could get their nose in there.
Depends on the individuals making the decision.
I knew folks who just went to twig for many years, subject to no one. I was one of them.
And, for anyone who thinks being married to John is a fate worse than death...
Well, it would be for me
but not totally off topic)
Not totally
I had a situation recently in which the believer I had asked to housesit for us tried to 'reprove' me with the Word on the subject of what it meant to be 'the keeper of the home'.
Interesting that this kind of behavior still takes place.
Before he got three sentences into his tirade, John shut him up with, 'Jean works very hard to keep the house as clean as she can, and if you don't like it, feel free not to come here again'.
Good for John.
The gentleman stamped out with a very red face and has since sent me a very nice letter of apology.
Nice that you got the letter of apology. Nice that your husband stuck up for you. Scary that this guy thought that it was appropriate to "reprove" you.
I just thought I would throw that out there for anyone who might think that John degrades women.
Well, thanks, I guess. But why are you trying to convince anyone? You're the one who lives with him, not us. I was under the impression that you didn't care what any of us thought, and had explained away phrases like "clock her like she deserves". My mistake. My apologies.
Jean,
You do bring up a valid point that is sometimes overlooked. The emphasis appears to me to be on the word "own", not "husband". Christians are supposed to submit to each other, so what is Paul addressing here when he tells wives to submit to their own husbands? Just what you said, that they are not married to everyone in the fellowship, just their own husband. Keep in mind that the culture in which the new testament was written was not one of equal rights for women. Is the verse there to keep women subservient, or to limit that subservience? It's similar to the verses about slaves. Slavery was an accepted part of the culture at the time. The NT doesn't say to free the slaves, but gives instructions on how masters are to treat their salves and for slaves to obey their masters, yet it would be an extremely rare person in the year 2007 that would use those verses to justify slavery.
Being subject to your husband does not mean that you are to put your brain and emotions in neutral for the rest of your life!! A quick look at the Bible shows intelligent woman who made dynamic decisions.
Being subject to your husband means that he is the head of the house IN SO FAR AS he is subject to Heavenly Fathers will.
Once the husband steps away from God and what His will is and/or interprets the Bible to say other than what it says etc., God expects the wife to step up to the plate so as to make sure her life and the lives of her children are in keeping with "the word".
Husbands who commit adultry, are abusive to spouse and children, don't work, are addicts etc. have exercised their freedom of choice and elected to stop walking in Christ's footsteps. Nowhere in the Bible are women exhorted to follow a husband who walks in the paths of sin.
There are Old Testament passages that exhort a wife to stay with a non-believer so that through her example he may be converted. But there are NO passages that tell a woman what her response is to be toward a believing spouse who chooses to follow a life of sin. Since these passages do not exist we are left with what does exist.
The New Testament is a guidebook for our lives which repeatedly stresses that we are responsible for eschewing evil and following Christ, no exceptions no excuses. There is validity to the idea that a wife and husband stay married through the hard times--but staying married DOES NOT mean always living at the same address.( Another topic not addressed directly in the Scriptures.)
If anything, the New Testament, and the Bible as a whole, is clear that a woman is to follow after Christ and bring her children up to do likewise--subjecting herself and children to the dictates of a husband who preaches sin as a lifetyle violates this most fundamental of commandments IMO.
Oldies, do you think the above examples represent a man loving his wife as Christ loved the church?
absolutely
One question.. maybe it is too personal. If so, answer to yourself. I am not expecting an answer. But..
are you or have you ever been married?
If so, was this how you managed the relationship?
"woman, shut the **** up" was how one limb guy in the seventies ran his marriage.. I saw it first hand. And this was one of the guys trained by the vicster.
I would rather take the route that would make me out as a coward.. honestly.
To quote one of my old limb coordinators before he was labeled "weak and possessed"..
"I'd RATHER err on the side of being too loving and gentle".
he sure didn't last long in der ministry.
His marriage is still intact and loving, the last I knew of him though.
Like it or not, the Way taught (or teaches) the bible and the bible teaches that the wife be subject to the husband (Eph 5: 22-24).
After all we once were participants in a BIBLICAL group who believed the BIBLE is the word of God?
Nobody was forced to do this and we consented to it, year after year.
This does present a problem for the wife if she does not want to live like that. Of course it does. The whole damn bible presents a problem if one doesn't want to live like that.
But I am still of the opinion that folks should stop blaming twi for something that the bible says right there in plain English.
I would add, I think husbands who love their wives as Christ loved the church are worthy of the wives submission.
The real problem is that we believed in a fundamentalist view of the scriptures that took every word as being literally true. When one considers the fact that the bible (new testament) is a 2000 years old document, was translated from one language to another to another...when one considers that religious dogma was a major consideration in the translations...and when one considers that cultural norms were VERY different than they are today...it seems ludicrous to me that anyone would take the bible literally.
I believe in the major themes and concepts of salvation in Christ that are contained in the scriptures...as far as every jot and every tittle being God breathed...sorry, much of it simply doesn't pass the smell test. There are numerous "books of the bible" that were excluded and many others (whose authenticity is questionable) that were included...
Once an individual bought into the twi fundamentalist approach to the scriptures, they fell prey to Mr. Wierwilles interpretaions of it.
...and once again oldies blames the victims of twi for being victims of twi.
Any man who still adheres to the chauvinistic twi doctrine of degrading women, deserves to live alone with a blow up doll.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
16
40
32
Popular Days
Jul 5
32
Jul 11
29
Jul 9
26
Jul 6
25
Top Posters In This Topic
GrouchoMarxJr 13 posts
oldiesman 16 posts
Ham 40 posts
Jeaniam 32 posts
Popular Days
Jul 5 2007
32 posts
Jul 11 2007
29 posts
Jul 9 2007
26 posts
Jul 6 2007
25 posts
Bolshevik
I wouldn't read too much into the microphones. I think I've seen both types be used by both sexes.
twi is good at degrading everyone.
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=14332
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
well i don't know, i'm just posting anywhere and everywhere
but the most degrading people i ever met (you know, toward women) was the man of god of our day and time and the man of god of gartmore's day and time.....
sorry all roads lead back to highway 29 ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
And that road (SR 29) is a shortcut to hell.
From the PFAL session where VPW stated that "all of the women in the kingdom belonged to the king" to "Principles of a Believing (Believer's?) Family" TWI has taught that women were placed upon earth by God to serve men, and their two chief responsibilities are to keep their mouths shut and their legs open.
My least fond memories are of LCM's rants blaming wives for turning their husbands away from himself and his wonderful truths by their "itchy-bytchy comments" and that men needed to get their wives in line.
A lot of women have posted here that TWI persuaded their husbands to leave them, saying they were possessed or some such nonsense. Only the women who were on the inside of their perverted little world had any power, and heaven knows what or who they had to do to get it.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Honestly.. "degrading women".. was done behind my back so to speak.
I remember some things.. too damn personal, and involves others.. better not say.
All I'll say is, some of us guys had no idea what kind of pressure was put on the women, or wives, to not bring supposed shame or disappointment..
It was another stupid illusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
In Pfal there was that little section on VP leaarning how to SIT, the minister that lead him into tongues put his wife in her place--and VP respected him for that.
But did the wife really do something terrible? Seems to me she wanted to know how long he would be...Really did she deserve to be smacked down?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Most of my "rah!, rah!" years were spent as a single person.
I saw some of the aforementioned behavior but didn't have a clue it was not relegated to isolated incidents.
It's one of those things where you look back and go:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"the Way, Living in Love". vpw is telling, in his own words, some stories.
==================
pg-199.
"Then a woman came over to me, and said, 'I think God sent a man here to meet your need.
Meet me at 9am.' I thought,
'Women never tell the truth.' "
pg-200.
"At lunchtime Stiles came in with his wife and the pianist. I just remember thinking to myself,
'There aren't going to be any women around when I get the holy spirit.'
I was just watching and waiting. Lunch was kind of light talk- we talked about Oral
Roberts, the Holy Spirit, lots of stuff. When we were done, I picked up the check, and
then Stiles turned to his wife and said, 'Honey, I'm going with VP.' She said something
to him like, 'How long will you be?' And he said,
'That's none of your business.'
That was it, and my opinion of him as a man went up 99 percent.
His stature increased in my eyes. just from the way he handled her."
=======
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
It seems like all he really had to say was 'I don't know'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
And, for anyone who thinks being married to John is a fate worse than death (but not totally off topic) I had a situation recently in which the believer I had asked to housesit for us tried to 'reprove' me with the Word on the subject of what it meant to be 'the keeper of the home'. Before he got three sentences into his tirade, John shut him up with, 'Jean works very hard to keep the house as clean as she can, and if you don't like it, feel free not to come here again'. The gentleman stamped out with a very red face and has since sent me a very nice letter of apology. I just thought I would throw that out there for anyone who might think that John degrades women.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Says a lot about his character. In public, he put Dotsie on a pedestal.. everything was probably ok as long as she stayed there.
I've seen how the "men" he directly "trained" treated their wives.
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Hi folks.
Like it or not, the Way taught (or teaches) the bible and the bible teaches that the wife be subject to the husband (Eph 5: 22-24).
After all we once were participants in a BIBLICAL group who believed the BIBLE is the word of God?
Nobody was forced to do this and we consented to it, year after year.
This does present a problem for the wife if she does not want to live like that. Of course it does. The whole damn bible presents a problem if one doesn't want to live like that.
But I am still of the opinion that folks should stop blaming twi for something that the bible says right there in plain English.
I would add, I think husbands who love their wives as Christ loved the church are worthy of the wives submission.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"the Way, Living in Love". vpw is telling, in his own words, some stories.
Oldies, do you think the above examples represent a man loving his wife as Christ loved the church?
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I agree with most of your points (especially the last one) but I will point out that the Bible exhorts wives to be subject to her 'own' husband, not every man who comes along.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Absolutely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
In TWI as I knew it, the wife was subject to her husband...and the husband was subject to the Fellowship coordinator, the branch coordinator, the limb coordinator, the Region coordinator, and any other coordinator that could get their nose in there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
There was a time when that was true, but John was usually quick to tell anyone who offered unasked for advice to mind their own business.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Depends on the individuals making the decision.
I knew folks who just went to twig for many years, subject to no one. I was one of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
What I really mean is, it's a free will thing.
If one freely consented to their situation back then, I think it's pretty hard to complain about it now and make much sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
It's hard to consent to unwritten rules that pop up as you go along.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Jean,
You do bring up a valid point that is sometimes overlooked. The emphasis appears to me to be on the word "own", not "husband". Christians are supposed to submit to each other, so what is Paul addressing here when he tells wives to submit to their own husbands? Just what you said, that they are not married to everyone in the fellowship, just their own husband. Keep in mind that the culture in which the new testament was written was not one of equal rights for women. Is the verse there to keep women subservient, or to limit that subservience? It's similar to the verses about slaves. Slavery was an accepted part of the culture at the time. The NT doesn't say to free the slaves, but gives instructions on how masters are to treat their salves and for slaves to obey their masters, yet it would be an extremely rare person in the year 2007 that would use those verses to justify slavery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
ARRRGHHHHH
***primal scream to relieve angst********
Being subject to your husband does not mean that you are to put your brain and emotions in neutral for the rest of your life!! A quick look at the Bible shows intelligent woman who made dynamic decisions.
Being subject to your husband means that he is the head of the house IN SO FAR AS he is subject to Heavenly Fathers will.
Once the husband steps away from God and what His will is and/or interprets the Bible to say other than what it says etc., God expects the wife to step up to the plate so as to make sure her life and the lives of her children are in keeping with "the word".
Husbands who commit adultry, are abusive to spouse and children, don't work, are addicts etc. have exercised their freedom of choice and elected to stop walking in Christ's footsteps. Nowhere in the Bible are women exhorted to follow a husband who walks in the paths of sin.
There are Old Testament passages that exhort a wife to stay with a non-believer so that through her example he may be converted. But there are NO passages that tell a woman what her response is to be toward a believing spouse who chooses to follow a life of sin. Since these passages do not exist we are left with what does exist.
The New Testament is a guidebook for our lives which repeatedly stresses that we are responsible for eschewing evil and following Christ, no exceptions no excuses. There is validity to the idea that a wife and husband stay married through the hard times--but staying married DOES NOT mean always living at the same address.( Another topic not addressed directly in the Scriptures.)
If anything, the New Testament, and the Bible as a whole, is clear that a woman is to follow after Christ and bring her children up to do likewise--subjecting herself and children to the dictates of a husband who preaches sin as a lifetyle violates this most fundamental of commandments IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
One question.. maybe it is too personal. If so, answer to yourself. I am not expecting an answer. But..
are you or have you ever been married?
If so, was this how you managed the relationship?
"woman, shut the **** up" was how one limb guy in the seventies ran his marriage.. I saw it first hand. And this was one of the guys trained by the vicster.
I would rather take the route that would make me out as a coward.. honestly.
To quote one of my old limb coordinators before he was labeled "weak and possessed"..
"I'd RATHER err on the side of being too loving and gentle".
he sure didn't last long in der ministry.
His marriage is still intact and loving, the last I knew of him though.
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
The real problem is that we believed in a fundamentalist view of the scriptures that took every word as being literally true. When one considers the fact that the bible (new testament) is a 2000 years old document, was translated from one language to another to another...when one considers that religious dogma was a major consideration in the translations...and when one considers that cultural norms were VERY different than they are today...it seems ludicrous to me that anyone would take the bible literally.
I believe in the major themes and concepts of salvation in Christ that are contained in the scriptures...as far as every jot and every tittle being God breathed...sorry, much of it simply doesn't pass the smell test. There are numerous "books of the bible" that were excluded and many others (whose authenticity is questionable) that were included...
Once an individual bought into the twi fundamentalist approach to the scriptures, they fell prey to Mr. Wierwilles interpretaions of it.
...and once again oldies blames the victims of twi for being victims of twi.
Any man who still adheres to the chauvinistic twi doctrine of degrading women, deserves to live alone with a blow up doll.
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...and this is the guy that was the "authority" on marriage, relationships and the proper way to treat women...
...I rest my case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.