A note on forgiving

[brideofjc]

I think it went the other way around.

Paul was the prototype WOW Ambassador. The program was based on him.

THINK AGAIN!

I'LL GIVE YOU A HINT...YOU ALREADY MENTIONED HIM

JESUS WAS THE FIRST TRUE AMBASSADOR FROM GOD!

[brideofjc]

The adaptation is more of an illusion.

Paul didn`t witness to the ladies promising them deliverance and all the answers to life and Godliness and turn around and tell them that God wanted them to service him sexually. Paul didn`t have his acolyte drug the young women and then rape them. Paul didn`t throw the non compliant from the ministry when they refused. Paul did not destroy lives and tear families assunder at a whim.

Paul was not an alcoholic adultering lying piece of scum, that used the scriptures and the name of God to steal that which was not his after the new birth :(

To attempt to draw a parallell between his life and walk and that of a man of the flesh piece of crap like wierwille who has no inheritance in the kingdom of heaven....is deeply offensive, and damned near blashphemy in my book.

Waysider is right...it was just plain weak.

Now, Rascal, LOL (can't stop) I bet you feel a lot better after that! OMG!

But now, please read my later post as well.

Edited February 23, 2008 by brideofjc

[Ham]

The relatives of Uriah must have had a tough time forgiving David.

The relatives of the believers Paul killed must have had a tough time forgiving Paul.

If Paul went back to supposedly killing christians the day, or even the year after his conversion, or even ten years.. your comparison might have a little validity.

how ineffective, and how trivial must have been the redemption vic claimed to have enjoyed.

[Ham]

Really.. if Paul the apostle lured a few christians to "off" in his motorcoach.. to relieve his day to day pressures.. it would make sense..

unbelievable..

[Ham]

It's like.. from the descriptions here.. he was a supposed saint.. a devil at the drop of the hat..

umm.. which "personality" is one supposed to forgive?

aggressive as hell.. and a somofabitch at one moment.. the next, teaching corps night.. peaceful..

the next moment.. corralling unwilling victims into his lair..

the next moment.. getting some guy to repopulate rabbits in northern ohio, so his grandkids can see rabbits.. true story.

the next moment.. tearing some poor camera guy's lungs out in front of a live audience..

Honestly.. I think he was schizophrenic..

can you forgive a madman? I don't know..

[brideofjc]

Galatians chapter 5 is ALL about separation and distinction...and it keeps it simple

Although, Rascal, blessed sister. Forgiving someone or a group of people who hurt you doesn't release them from their responsibility before

the Lord Jesus Christ. The forgiveness on your part releases you from the equation so that you can move on with your life. Forgiveness also

does not mean that you approve of their past actions nor of their continued actions if any. This is why the Lord Jesus forgave those who

crucified him and he therefore entrusted his God and father with the judgment of such people. Those responsible for such grievous sins will

one day have to answer for them. However, on the other hand, our God is also a forgiving God and it could well be that some of these people

have sought forgiveness and if they have, you should just rejoice that we serve such an awesome God. I personally hope that those who

are still living did or will seek repentance before the Lord. After all, I had to ask the Lord to forgive me for being so incredibly gullible that I

just swallowed down all the bogus lies without checking out the truth factors. While I still acknowledge their wrong, how do I explain this

properly, it has become more objective rather than subjective, which of course wasn't the case 15 years ago, because the wounds were still

open and this forgiveness thing that God approves of somehow closes up the wounds in your life. It doesn't happen overnight, but it seemed

for me at least that one day I realized I could put it on a shelf, take it down, look at it objectively, disapprove of what happened, teach on the

errors that came forth from them, but at the end of the day, put it back on the shelf without hauling it around with me everywhere I went.

The forgiveness is for you sweet sister.

[Ham]

can I offer a suggestion? We put the mogster in the straight jacket.. put him in the little padded room.. give him the right kind of sedatives, THEN forgive?

[brideofjc]

can I offer a suggestion? We put the mogster in the straight jacket.. put him in the little padded room.. give him the right kind of sedatives, THEN forgive?

Well, git yer shovel and spade out Ham....Dig the dude up and we'll give your idea a try.

However, I think the dude has the ultimate sedative and will not need any more.

[Ham]

Thanks for the encouraging words.

maybe we oughta try this on those who "came after" him..

all I need now is a six foot eight inch male nurse named "Bubba".. biceps the size of basket balls..

[brideofjc]

Thanks for the encouraging words.

maybe we oughta try this on those who "came after" him..

all I need now is a six foot eight inch male nurse named "Bubba".. biceps the size of basket balls..

You can always see if the Hulkster would like a little extra work.

[rascal]

Oldies, if you are going to quote me please, be HONEST and use the entire quote as written instead of just part so that you change the meaning. You left out the very important *after the new birth* at the end of my sentence.

What I SAID was......

Paul didn`t witness to the ladies promising them deliverance and all the answers to life and Godliness and turn around and tell them that God wanted them to service him sexually. Paul didn`t have his acolyte drug the young women and then rape them. Paul didn`t throw the non compliant from the ministry when they refused. Paul did not destroy lives and tear families assunder at a whim.

Paul was not an alcoholic adultering lying piece of scum, that used the scriptures and the name of God to steal that which was not his after the new birth :(

Old paul was a changed man after the new birth, a man of the spirit....what the hell was wierwilles excuse?? He was a man of the flesh...he will suffer the consequence. Scriptures say he won`t have an inheritance.

[bowtwi]

He sure did. He murdered Christians in the name of God. I think that's a helluva lot worse than young sex.

"Young sex"?

Young sex is two consenting young people engaging in sex with each other - BOTH CONSENTING.

Or possibly it could be a new sexual relationship that's young as opposed to having been together sexually for decades.

Cult leaders having sex with their congregation is not sex. It's rape or molestation, at the very least. Regardless, it's abuse and just plain wrong.

Hmmm, the young girls and women that were raped, molested, (or coerced into servicing who they thought was like kings of old in God's eyes) being left to wish they were dead after the sex was quite possibly as bad as actually being killed, if you ask me.

The ones that were marked and avoided, stripped of their families and friends in the ministry, declared "possessed as a new boot in hell" were just as destroyed as if they had been killed outright, only the pain didn't end for them as it would have if they had been literally killed.

What vpw, lcm and untold others did to countless girls and women is no comparison to young sex. Do you have any idea what it's like to carry that with you throughout the rest of your life? Evidently you don't have a clue. Even with the best counseling and tender loving care, it's difficult to make it through days sometimes. But to have someone throw out a remark like that in a thread like this is insulting to everyone who reads it.

Knock off the insults to our intelligence, will you please?

[Mike]

You don't want to try and verify that definition on Google. Trust me!

Edited February 23, 2008 by Mike

[bowtwi]

You don't want to try and verify that definition on Google. Trust me!

I wouldn't trust you if you told me it was sunny outside.

I'm so very sick and tired of people making stupid attempts at humor when the subject is so serious. It's insulting and annoying.

[Mike]

Yeah, I thought my subject was serious too, Paul's epistle. I guess that's the nature of this world.

But you STILL don't want to Google that definition.

Somebody else want to issue the warning?

[doojable]

He sure did. He murdered Christians in the name of God. I think that's a helluva lot worse than young sex.

Ahhhh - but he did that before he himself became a Christian. He didn't continue to murder after he converted.

Paul didn't add "young sex" to the sin of murder.

Paul didn't run from that sin - he openly admitted it and repented of it.

I don't recall any scripture ever saying that Paul had gotten to the place where "he could spiritually handle" murder. Nor, do I recall any place that he then added the sin of adultery.

OR- are you stating that there really are degrees of sin? (Well Paul murdered... but VP only committed adultery - in the name of God.)

Maybe you should google a definition of "obfuscate..." I bet your picture is right next to the word.

Edited February 23, 2008 by doojable

[Mike]

Whew! How do you people handle all that sin-talk?

I'm already past my limit, and think I could use a designated driver.

[doojable]

ob-fus-cate

1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.

2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.

3. to darken.

[Mike]

Want to see more of I Cor 3 ?

There's light there.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Mike

[rascal]

No, thankyou.

Edited February 23, 2008 by rascal

[What The Hey]

The adaptation is more of an illusion.

Paul didn`t witness to the ladies promising them deliverance and all the answers to life and Godliness and turn around and tell them that God wanted them to service him sexually. Paul didn`t have his acolyte drug the young women and then rape them. Paul didn`t throw the non compliant from the ministry when they refused. Paul did not destroy lives and tear families assunder at a whim.

Paul was not an alcoholic adultering lying piece of scum, that used the scriptures and the name of God to steal that which was not his after the new birth :(

To attempt to draw a parallell between his life and walk and that of a man of the flesh piece of crap like wierwille who has no inheritance in the kingdom of heaven....is deeply offensive, and damned near blashphemy in my book.

Waysider is right...it was just plain weak.

WAIT JUST A MINUTE --- Let's back up a bit and see how VPW might have responded to those accusations. ----

MY GOD! VPW DID RESPOND TO THEM!! (It's right there in: "Your Power of Attorney" - Volume II, The New Dynamic Church)

Here is what he [VPW] said:

Every person in the world wants a good name. People desire to be well thought of, and rightly so. I [VPW] want to have a good name, and I [VPW] want people to think well of me.

But many people's names today are not respected. A man says to you, "I'll pay you on such and such a day." When that day comes, he does not pay. Someone promises, "I'll meet you at such and such a time." When that time comes, he is not there but has left you waiting. Such a person's name is not respected because he has not put of lying.* (1st Footnote: Ephesians 4:25)

I know that Chirst is in me (2nd Footnote: Colossians 1:27) and I am in Him.** (3rd Footnote: Romans 8:1)

No matter what people may say, no matter what the world may say, my name [VPW] is written in the Book of Life. (p.43 & 44 of TNDC)

That is what VPW had written some time ago - back when he was alive.

Now it would seem to me if VPW had really said what he meant and really meant what he said (to use a common PFAL colloquialism) then I certainly fail to see just how your opinion of him now (or anybody else's opinion of him now for that matter) holds anything or amounts to anything but a bunch of "hot-air".

What's the conclusion?: If people's opinion of him didn't mean a d*** thing to him back when he was alive, ---

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOUR OPINION OF HIM WOULD MEAN ANYTHING TO HIM NOW THAT HE IS DEAD???

Apparently this is what "your opinion" would have amounted to and meant to him when he was alive since we clearly see how VPW responded in print (3 times in fact with footnotes) to "people's opinions and people's accusations" with the Word of God. (Revelation 12:9,10)

[WordWolf]

I think it went the other way around.

Paul was the prototype WOW Ambassador. The program was based on him.

[i have yet to find a text that said that Paul ran a class, spent exactly 1 year per

location, or went as anyone ELSE directed. The money-thing, standardized for classes,

isn't an issue with Paul, who didn't hesitate about working a secular job.

If the program was based on him, you'd think the primary attributes of the program

(and not just the nebulous "goals" which MANY Christian programs have)

would actually correspond to Paul.]

I was planning on stalling after... uh ...er ...planning on RESTING after posting all that stuff anyway.

[i like your posts better when they just come out and SAY stuff like this.

I can disagree with you but RESPECT you when you do that.

It makes a big difference.

After all, if you want to be the big salesman for pfal, you can't do that when nobody

respects you because you're being circumloquitous and never addressing them directly.]

The adaptation is more of an illusion.

Paul didn`t witness to the ladies promising them deliverance and all the answers to life and Godliness and turn around and tell them that God wanted them to service him sexually. Paul didn`t have his acolyte drug the young women and then rape them. Paul didn`t throw the non compliant from the ministry when they refused. Paul did not destroy lives and tear families assunder at a whim.

Paul was not an alcoholic adultering lying piece of scum, that used the scriptures and the name of God to steal that which was not his after the new birth :(

To attempt to draw a parallell between his life and walk and that of a man of the flesh piece of crap like wierwille who has no inheritance in the kingdom of heaven....is deeply offensive, and damned near blashphemy in my book.

Waysider is right...it was just plain weak.

Galatians 5: 16-24 (KJV)

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.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

[WordWolf]

Maybe that is why, in his last HQ teaching, Dr said that he would not put himself in the shoes of the Apostle Paul (or something like that).

[i certainly wouldn't put vpw in Paul's shoes either.

Paul spent his life irrespective of creature comforts.

He risked his life to do what God wanted him to do, even unto death.

vpw lived in creature comforts, and, apparently, was fine with his own

choices to drug and rape women in the congregation.

He also was fine with people standing and playing "Hail to the Chief"

when he entered a room,

and deliberately modeled the seal after the US President's seal.

and insisted on a plane-which he named after the US President's plane.

I could keep going, but it's obvious that-between Paul and vpw,

that neither was in the same category as the other.]

I agree.

The Galatians were pretty out of it, like the early Corinthians.

They had no choice but to go the blunt simple way.

They were not advanced enough to make the those kinds of calls I'm talking about.

Spiritual maturity allows us to see things from God's perspective.

From the human perspective Galatians is about the only safe way to proceed.

The Galatians approach would line up with the First Corinthian letter where Paul told themn to throw that bad guy out.

The Corinthians listened to the first letter and applied it.

They graduated to the advanced level and were told to take the guy back in and love him in the second letter.

I'm assuming these Epistles are well known to you. Are they?

[Wow-

so the God-breathed Galatians 5 has it completely WRONG,

and Mike, by contrast, has it RIGHT!

Amazing.]

The relatives of Uriah must have had a tough time forgiving David.

[For those who missed it,

Mike keeps adding to Scripture and

insisting that King David's deliberate maneuverings to trick Uriah which ended in him arranging Uriah's death

was COMMON KNOWLEDGE-

that the neighbors knew Bath-sheba's child wasn't Uriah's child,

and that King David specifically arranged to have Uriah killed.

All of this is NOT in the text, and is what vpw called "private interpretation."

I've explained this in great detail to Mike TWICE. He still insists this happened

no matter what the verses say.

If anyone's interested, I can post the previous answers again, but, really, I don't see the need myself.]

[rascal]

Why would I believe the words of a man of the flesh used to justify himself and his fruit??

His dirty little secrets out, vp`s credibility is in the toilet...why on EARTH would I care one iota about what he (or anybody) about thinks of my opinions of his fruit?

Edited February 23, 2008 by rascal

[rascal]

I guess my problem is with people trying to elevate a man of the flesh, a destroyer of christian lives, a man who sated his lusts and filled his belly resulting in the so much pain. A false prophet who`s doctrine drew people away from God and placed them in bondage to men of no character and integrety to be used and when the usefullness was exhausted ...tossed them away lioke so much garbage.

It reminds me of pimps and drug dealers.

You THEN have people who want to take these men that did these things in the name of God, and elevate them to christian status, accord them the respect and consideration due a man of the spirit, and insist that we regard these men with the love and respect due a selfless minister and leader ...AND their doctrine as spiritually wholsome and worthy of the treatment of one of the flock.

I don`t think so :(

Edited February 23, 2008 by rascal