I think the devil TEMPTED Eve with basically performing fellatio on Adam. What are the components....Don't EAT from the TREE in the middle of the garden (pubic hair being the forest). devil tells her that IT WAS PLEASANT TO THE EYES, it is GOOD FOR FOOD....
Now with that in mind....the seminal fluid is jam packed with SEED....i.e. human beings in seed form....thus, murdering them. How? Because they didn't come together as the LORD GOD had prescribed for them to come together...hence, even though all of the seed obviously wouldn't have culminated in a pregnancy....there would still be no sin...because they would have been in obedience to the LORD.
That is how it was presented in the original CF&S class.
The only variation is that VPW also taught that they both "consumed" the by-product.
"I don't have a scriptural syllabus reference for this; you'll just have to trust me."
Personally, I think that the original sin was eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good an evil. This is exactly where we went wrong in twi even back in the 70s and 80s when I was there. We got all concerned about trivial stuff instead of what we are supposed to do, knowledge instead of action and relationship. We were still eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Truly knowledge puffs up.
Thanks for verifying the doctrine was taught for me. I have no need to look it up on the other threads though. Besides, I think it's a search that might overtake my ability to keep from retching.
I agree with you that it's best to hold of seting any of the considerations as official church doctrine until the matter can be seen as internally consistent within the scriptures.
It now seems to me as extreemly ironic that the story I heard of LCM's first way fellowship had Donny Fuegot(sp?) saying emphatically to Craig in regards to Peter's vision on the roof top that if "the bible doesn't say, you just don't know." When he shared this story about Donny he shared it like it was an entirely new way for him to think about the Bible. I GUESS HE TOTALLY FORGOT WHAT DONNY TAUGHT HIM BY THE TIME HE WAS BIG-MAN ON CAMPUSS. How sad.
Martindale claimed in his WayAP teaching on the original sin of mankind that many of the words found in Genesis 3 had sexual connotations, I don't have a syllabus, but if I recall it was the bolded words:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it waspleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Each of those words was defined by Martindale as if the primary and common meaning of each was sexual in nature. A cursory look at a Young's concordance showed him to be incorrect, they were each the ordinary, run-of-the-mill words used in non-sexual situation. I think that maybe desire was the only one that couild even be sometimes used sexually.
The stupidest thing that he came up with was his definition of the word "eyes". He claimed that a homonym of the word for "eyes", 'ayin was translated "fountain", so therefore the correct translation was "fountain", which he claimed obviously referred to an orgasm. (To me this also showed that he didn't understand what a hopmonym was - they're two distinct words that just happen to be spelled or pronounced the same - their not synonyms)
The word 'ayin literally refers to physical eyes, but also figuratively referred to a fountain. According to blueletterbible.com it is because fountains "resembled eyes". I seem to recall (perhaps it was in the New Bible Dictionary?) that fountains were figuratively referred to as the "eye of the [insert landscape feature here] because of their central location.
This was one of the things that I argued strongly against during my last several years in TWI. Tom Horrocks told me that it may not be able to be supported by scripture, but it "must be right because of what we know about homosexuality. My discussions on WayDale & GSC about this doctrine caught the eye (or maybe it caught the fountain) of the WayGB and was a key factor in my expulsion from TWI.
For me, the best of PFAL doctrine was about proving doctrines and rejecting ANYTHING that was not supported by the scripture.
I can relate to being expelled, but my conscience is clear, especially in terms of handling God's Word. That's how it ended up for me in my little splinter group.
This statement may be too bold, and I'm willing to be corrected, but it seems to me that LCM had the same problem as the minister that Dr. taught about in PFAL who thought Paul's thorn in the flesh was that he was a sexual pervert. The only thing that he revealed in his handling of the scripture was his own problem.
I am unable to accept this as THE Answer, and not just one possibility,
because it fails to answer ALL questions on the subject.
Specifically, it offers no explanation for Genesis 3:22-24,
and the Tree of Life, and living forever.
I'm not asking anyone to accept it as THE answer, in all reality it is "just one possibility."
I didn't have time this morning to write all that I really wanted to write, had to go to work, but here is another point that goes along with
what I wrote afore in few words. Eating, in the bible is not just the physical act, but can be the internalizing of God's Words, digesting them etc., So eating from the Tree of Life may not be a physical tree to physically eat from, but rather the digestion of the Word of God through obedience.
If the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is one body part or sex act, then by the same reasoning,
the Tree of Life would have to be another.
If likening them to sexual acts completely, it could very well be the coming together of man and woman in the manner that God prescribed.
If so, moving both people who committed the FIRST sex act/ interacted with the body part
would have done nothing to prevent
"eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil"
(under your answer, it would have done nothing to prevent it)
and they're moved to prevent eating from the Tree of Life,
and the mover (God) is at least as smart as I am,
then moving them makes no sense,
even if I don't know EXACTLY what the ToL is meant to refer to.
It can't be another PERSON, since there WAS no other person.
(You and I agree on this.)
Since we are surmising (which can be fun sometimes), once they had chosen the incorrect choice...well. I do not know how old you are, but "Let's make a Deal" used to have one prize, and it was always the lesser one, until the model moved the roll away hider and voila! the better prize behind. I'm not saying that this is 100% what happened, but it is another possibility, that had they chosen the TOL (Jesus in pre-incarnate form) for their eternal life, there would never have been a need for sexual relations, but since they chose the lesser version of eternal life, i.e. children, they absolutely could not have the TOL that was present in the garden at that time.
Sex act with an angel would enable them to live forever?
Sorry, I can write it down, but it just sounds silly.
That is a belief prevalent regarding the Nephilim and the sons of God cohabiting with women, in that it doesn't refer to actual men, but principalities, power and authorities (angelic) that had already fallen because they had chosen to follow the devil and so were thrown out of heaven. It is also referred to them that they had privy members the size of donkeys, so now you know where that saying comes from
Therefore, I await an INTERNALLY-CONSISTENT answer to all questions.
No matter how you slice it, I classify the sin as "rebellion", and think "High Treason" is not
incorrect no matter WHO said it-or relayed it.
I can deal with "I don't know the SPECIFIC sin" since I don't NEED to know it.
And since I don't actually know it.
It is not a life or death matter to us whether we know it or not and I do not teach the above as doctrine, most people would not be able to handle it, especially since they have been raised that Adam/Eve actually ate a literal physical apple. Maybe the KJV translators chose that because they could eat the fruit and spit out the seeds. Sorry, couldn't resist! <_<
That is how it was presented in the original CF&S class.
The only variation is that VPW also taught that they both "consumed" the by-product.
"I don't have a scriptural syllabus reference for this; you'll just have to trust me."
edited to state that it was the CF&S class, not PLAF.
They probably did, in that the text states that Adam was with her and she did give him to eat. That's if fellatio is the culprit, if not then another option that I have thought of is that the TOL was Jesus in His pre-incarnate form as opposed to the enemy of God. Therefore, the "eating" was the digestion of the words of either and hence they chose the wrong words to digest.
Martindale claimed in his WayAP teaching on the original sin of mankind that many of the words found in Genesis 3 had sexual connotations, I don't have a syllabus, but if I recall it was the bolded words:
Each of those words was defined by Martindale as if the primary and common meaning of each was sexual in nature. A cursory look at a Young's concordance showed him to be incorrect, they were each the ordinary, run-of-the-mill words used in non-sexual situation. I think that maybe desire was the only one that couild even be sometimes used sexually.
I don't think I need to tell you that words can have a "double entendre" and so there is a possibility that these particular ones do and by far, vpw was not the first one to know these things. As I said, Jewish literature asks these same questions and proposed these same things. To look it up in a concordance or lexicon, it would not necessarily show a play on words, but it is understood by the context.
This was one of the things that I argued strongly against during my last several years in TWI. Tom Horrocks told me that it may not be able to be supported by scripture, but it "must be right because of what we know about homosexuality. My discussions on WayDale & GSC about this doctrine caught the eye (or maybe it caught the fountain) of the WayGB and was a key factor in my expulsion from TWI.
They exist but are greatly diminished, phs 600 active? Of coe there are many offshoots ... ome tve come and ge ...
... lcm got booted after a lawsuit was settled against him, and he reportedly works the aisles at a Home Depot. ...
twi still has gunnison but sold emporia ... I think they sold Rome City too, but it is back up for sale? I'm not even sure on that one.
You'll have to just read some of the forums to catch up ...
I ALWAYS WONDERED WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PERSONS I WAS AQUAINTED WITH AND ENDED UP BEING SUCH A HORRID MESS, I ALWAYS FIGURED THEY BECAME EXECUTIVES LIKE MC FADDEN.
THERE WAS LOU GUIGOU AND HIS WIFE TERESSA; KENNETH WIDNER AND JO ANNE; TABATHA TORRES; TENLEY BOWLES; PEYTON FOOSE;
BRYAN CARPENTER; AND THERE USED TO BE LIKE 150 MEMBERS JUST AROUND THE CHARLOTTTE, NC AREA?
Not so fast, D....there are plenty of Jewish writings where this is surmised as well. Honestly, what the heck else was there? Not like there were gambling casinos, saloons, opium dens etc. This is why it is the natural choice to surmise that sex in some form was the culprit. ME? I've pondered on it myself as well. When I first heard vp talk about it...CFS?...I just naturally accepted it....but after I left, I went through a period of years, I'm sure everyone else did too, where I literally rejected just about everything that I had received....burning the collaterals....shredding other things...depending on the mood of the moment But then at some point I began to muse again on the topic, having new information from seminary et al and THIS TIME asking the LORD to help me ponder these things. Not that it is a life and death topic, at least not now, it was for them.... :unsure:
In the laws of Moses, it is unlawful to commit
1. adultery
2. homosexuality
3. lesbianism
4. incest
5. spilling your seed on the ground
What I have come to understand is this out of all of the ponderings and choices that I mused upon:
1. Adultery? With who? Nope!
2. Homosexuality? again, with who? Fallen angels? There LIES a possibility.
3. Lesbianism? again, with who?
4. Not yet. No one else around.
5. This is the one that made the most sense to me. I have come to understand through the process of how iniquities work, with it being passed down to the 3rd and 4th generations that one of the things that Cain is charged with is being the first murderer. You just don't up and murder, folks. There has to be a DRIVE behind it. With that in mind....this must mean then that Cain inherited the iniquity of murder from his parents. So....since obviously males carry the seed....what I think has a very good possibility of happening? I think the devil TEMPTED Eve with basically performing fellatio on Adam. What are the components....Don't EAT from the TREE in the middle of the garden (pubic hair being the forest). devil tells her that IT WAS PLEASANT TO THE EYES, it is GOOD FOR FOOD....
Now with that in mind....the seminal fluid is jam packed with SEED....i.e. human beings in seed form....thus, murdering them. How? Because they didn't come together as the LORD GOD had prescribed for them to come together...hence, even though all of the seed obviously wouldn't have culminated in a pregnancy....there would still be no sin...because they would have been in obedience to the LORD.
You are free to disagree, but this is the best that I have ever came up with. Because, folks, there just wasn't any apples, except maybe the two below the tree.
Just my thoughts....at 4:59 a.m.
For what it's worth --- I have no idea what other religions teach about this.
Nor do I care. I find it (somewhat) fascinating (sp?) that twi fixates itself on this one topic.
I will not now (nor have I ever) speculated on what the EXACT sin was, that was *original*.
I did (once) hear it taught (and I forget where now) that the Original Sin was merely:
disobediance to God. That's a premise I can live with.
What is life like under the pregnant guppy with Rosalie as Pyrez? Has the seventh commandment been reinstated.
When Craig got booted (excuse me, "placed on probation") he was quietly moved to Toledo, OH where he could be under the watchful eye of one twi-croney Dr. Z*n@. Unlike so many of us who were booted as couples when ONE spouse screwed up, Donna retained her status at twi: her home, her position as Asst. to the President, and her supposedly clean spiritual record. HAH! Followers were not told any of these details and were given a good chewing out if they asked about it.
Well, for that matter, when Craig was put on probation they never gave any details about duties or duration, like they did with everyone else. And when year after year passed with no mention of Craig's name people just "figured out" he was gone for good. But no one I know still in twi suspects twi still keeps tabs on him or supports him, which the paper trail seems to indicate they have. And they would be foolish not to... he could REALLY spill the beans on them if he ever decided to.... can't have that, now, can we?
Craig would occassionally turn up in New Knoxville to watch Tim play basketball and things like that but there was little if any reporting that Craig and Donna were trying to patch things up. And a few years later someone reported seeing the legal documents indicating that they eventually got a divorce. Again, nothing ever mentioned to the twits about any of it.
Eye witness accounts here on the boards say that Donna and Rosie have been chummy for years. In some peoples' minds, a little TOO chummy if you get my drift. Even before Craig left, they were known to take shopping trips together, vacation together, sharing one hotel room... Could be nothing. But the fact that Rosalie had two well-known (supposedly ex-)lesbians living in the basement of her home for years, and the fact that Craig had such a hatred of homosexuals does make it look a certain way...
As for what life at HQ is like under Rosalie I can only surmise. Folks currently in twi would tell you it's just like back in the old days!! But I seriously doubt it.
She is the one who made her staff sign out for bathroom breaks in Way Pub. I had a friend who worked there and she wasn't even allowed to take a lunch break with me when I was in-rez and had a break because it wasn't her 'scheduled lunch time'. When I heard that Rosalie had been put in charge of Way Prod, I said something about it to this friend and in a very stiff tone she replied, "Well, she certainly knows how to get things done." This was so out of character I was too stunned to ask anything further (besides, this gal would never bad-mouth anyone no matter how deserving) but it didn't take too long for me to figure out that Rosalie was not well-liked by most 'joe-believers' who had to deal with her.
that last item took them over sixty five years of "biblical research" to enable them to make a public statement that beastiality isn't exactly "kosher"..
that last item took them over sixty five years of "biblical research" to enable them to make a public statement that beastiality isn't exactly "kosher"..
Ahhh, yesssss.... #6....the number for MAN, or is that beast??? Only 65 years? A new record, I'm sure.
Eye witness accounts here on the boards say that Donna and Rosie have been chummy for years. In some peoples' minds, a little TOO chummy if you get my drift. Even before Craig left, they were known to take shopping trips together, vacation together, sharing one hotel room... Could be nothing. But the fact that Rosalie had two well-known (supposedly ex-)lesbians living in the basement of her home for years, and the fact that Craig had such a hatred of homosexuals does make it look a certain way...
Interesting...
So one possibility is that the 2 living in the basement (sharing 1 bed) potentially could have had something on Rosie & Donna such as knowing the true nature of their relationship, and so were protected. Craig's hatred of homos AND the kind of out there interpretation in his FNC of the original sin being lesbianism could point to him knowing about such a relationship, yet with those 2 having all the dirt on his escapades being powerless to do anything about it besides rant like a lunatic. The basement duo survived all the purges at HQ, and Janet even provided a lot of 'genuine spiritual suspicion' evidence (takes one to know one). Rosie gave them a lavish banquet when they left that nobody there could understand. There is evidence (can see on Wikipedia and published in a newspaper) that Rosie knew of Craig's escapades by 1995. It's quite a stretch to think that she wouldn't have told her good 'friend' Donna, and they potentially may have known years before this. Then they conspired to oust Craig. The reason given Donna didn't have to leave with Craig was 'she didn't know about it'. Yeah right. They've ousted more people than that for 'lack of CP1'. I hear in the new FNC they took out the lesbianism in Gen 3, and removed Craig's closing the class with Romans 1. Everything else is pretty much intact.
Craig's hatred of homos AND the kind of out there interpretation in his FNC of the original sin being lesbianism could point to him knowing about such a relationship, yet with those 2 having all the dirt on his escapades being powerless to do anything about it besides rant like a lunatic.
so, in loy's mind.. I wonder if he really thought rosie was the devil, and donna was eve..
makes sense to me..
to this day it is said the loyster doesn't have a clue what he did was morally reprehensible.. he dumped a lot of that kind of "legalism" long ago..
Sounds kind of like the Whitehouse. Do you think Hillery, I mean Donna will run for President after Rosalie's term is up?
Followers were not told any of these details and were given a good chewing out if they asked about it.
This sounds familiar. Bach when the melt down started we were calling Debouski and Lynn and them "the dark side." As I look back on it now, we were the ones being kept in the dark.
That's very interesting Chockful. So they gave Janet and her "best" friend a banquet before they left? I had heard they were thrown out and left suddenly. So, I guess that was wrong, they were wined and dined.
I think what VP and LCM taught about being the "original sin" is nothing but a projection of their own sexual fantasies onto the fall. If you read other people's take on it, its always something that has to do with them. You can see the same thing in the writings of philosophers, eventually their "philosophy" is really about them.
They ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Who knows what it was. But LCM seeing the tree as a penis is whacked - his utterly corrupted seared conscience wishing it so.
I would imagine since Janet was sent away so lavishly, they all still keep in touch.
I was reading about a Christian guy who was a pothead, and he was just so sure the tree they ate of was pot - or a drug that got one high. Because, when they ate, the fruit "opened their eyes" (i.e., they were high, beyond normal consciousness) and they knew they were naked - that's as good an interpretation as any I guess - LOL. But it does make my point, people project what they're into onto the poor tree.
I do know that we do see both trees again in the Book of Revelation in the New Jerusalem in the millenium and they are freely available to all, the leaves are for the healing of the nations.
So, if TWI were really following its own principles, and following their usage in the Bible, since they appear in the New Jerusalem in the millenium and have nothing to do with sex, drugs, or rock n'roll (I threw that one in :) ), I would imagine both VP's and LCM's interpretations are dead wrong.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
20
16
10
Popular Days
May 15
18
May 20
18
May 14
12
Jun 4
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Sunesis 7 posts
Caveman 20 posts
brideofjc 16 posts
JeffSjo 10 posts
Popular Days
May 15 2008
18 posts
May 20 2008
18 posts
May 14 2008
12 posts
Jun 4 2008
9 posts
waysider
That is how it was presented in the original CF&S class.
The only variation is that VPW also taught that they both "consumed" the by-product.
"I don't have a scriptural syllabus reference for this; you'll just have to trust me."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
edited to state that it was the CF&S class, not PLAF.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Caveman
Personally, I think that the original sin was eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good an evil. This is exactly where we went wrong in twi even back in the 70s and 80s when I was there. We got all concerned about trivial stuff instead of what we are supposed to do, knowledge instead of action and relationship. We were still eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Truly knowledge puffs up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I think THIS was the reason it mattered to us, because I think it's at least PART of the reason it mattered to vpw.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Dear Wordwolf,
Thanks for verifying the doctrine was taught for me. I have no need to look it up on the other threads though. Besides, I think it's a search that might overtake my ability to keep from retching.
I agree with you that it's best to hold of seting any of the considerations as official church doctrine until the matter can be seen as internally consistent within the scriptures.
It now seems to me as extreemly ironic that the story I heard of LCM's first way fellowship had Donny Fuegot(sp?) saying emphatically to Craig in regards to Peter's vision on the roof top that if "the bible doesn't say, you just don't know." When he shared this story about Donny he shared it like it was an entirely new way for him to think about the Bible. I GUESS HE TOTALLY FORGOT WHAT DONNY TAUGHT HIM BY THE TIME HE WAS BIG-MAN ON CAMPUSS. How sad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Martindale claimed in his WayAP teaching on the original sin of mankind that many of the words found in Genesis 3 had sexual connotations, I don't have a syllabus, but if I recall it was the bolded words:
Each of those words was defined by Martindale as if the primary and common meaning of each was sexual in nature. A cursory look at a Young's concordance showed him to be incorrect, they were each the ordinary, run-of-the-mill words used in non-sexual situation. I think that maybe desire was the only one that couild even be sometimes used sexually.
The stupidest thing that he came up with was his definition of the word "eyes". He claimed that a homonym of the word for "eyes", 'ayin was translated "fountain", so therefore the correct translation was "fountain", which he claimed obviously referred to an orgasm. (To me this also showed that he didn't understand what a hopmonym was - they're two distinct words that just happen to be spelled or pronounced the same - their not synonyms)
The word 'ayin literally refers to physical eyes, but also figuratively referred to a fountain. According to blueletterbible.com it is because fountains "resembled eyes". I seem to recall (perhaps it was in the New Bible Dictionary?) that fountains were figuratively referred to as the "eye of the [insert landscape feature here] because of their central location.
This was one of the things that I argued strongly against during my last several years in TWI. Tom Horrocks told me that it may not be able to be supported by scripture, but it "must be right because of what we know about homosexuality. My discussions on WayDale & GSC about this doctrine caught the eye (or maybe it caught the fountain) of the WayGB and was a key factor in my expulsion from TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
How sad Oakspear.
For me, the best of PFAL doctrine was about proving doctrines and rejecting ANYTHING that was not supported by the scripture.
I can relate to being expelled, but my conscience is clear, especially in terms of handling God's Word. That's how it ended up for me in my little splinter group.
This statement may be too bold, and I'm willing to be corrected, but it seems to me that LCM had the same problem as the minister that Dr. taught about in PFAL who thought Paul's thorn in the flesh was that he was a sexual pervert. The only thing that he revealed in his handling of the scripture was his own problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
They probably did, in that the text states that Adam was with her and she did give him to eat. That's if fellatio is the culprit, if not then another option that I have thought of is that the TOL was Jesus in His pre-incarnate form as opposed to the enemy of God. Therefore, the "eating" was the digestion of the words of either and hence they chose the wrong words to digest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CONNERRON
I ALWAYS WONDERED WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PERSONS I WAS AQUAINTED WITH AND ENDED UP BEING SUCH A HORRID MESS, I ALWAYS FIGURED THEY BECAME EXECUTIVES LIKE MC FADDEN.
THERE WAS LOU GUIGOU AND HIS WIFE TERESSA; KENNETH WIDNER AND JO ANNE; TABATHA TORRES; TENLEY BOWLES; PEYTON FOOSE;
BRYAN CARPENTER; AND THERE USED TO BE LIKE 150 MEMBERS JUST AROUND THE CHARLOTTTE, NC AREA?
CONNERRON
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Caveman
So are Craig and Donna still together?
What is life like under the pregnant guppy with Rosalie as Pyrez? Has the seventh commandment been reinstated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
For what it's worth --- I have no idea what other religions teach about this.
Nor do I care. I find it (somewhat) fascinating (sp?) that twi fixates itself on this one topic.
I will not now (nor have I ever) speculated on what the EXACT sin was, that was *original*.
I did (once) hear it taught (and I forget where now) that the Original Sin was merely:
disobediance to God. That's a premise I can live with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
When Craig got booted (excuse me, "placed on probation") he was quietly moved to Toledo, OH where he could be under the watchful eye of one twi-croney Dr. Z*n@. Unlike so many of us who were booted as couples when ONE spouse screwed up, Donna retained her status at twi: her home, her position as Asst. to the President, and her supposedly clean spiritual record. HAH! Followers were not told any of these details and were given a good chewing out if they asked about it.
Well, for that matter, when Craig was put on probation they never gave any details about duties or duration, like they did with everyone else. And when year after year passed with no mention of Craig's name people just "figured out" he was gone for good. But no one I know still in twi suspects twi still keeps tabs on him or supports him, which the paper trail seems to indicate they have. And they would be foolish not to... he could REALLY spill the beans on them if he ever decided to.... can't have that, now, can we?
Craig would occassionally turn up in New Knoxville to watch Tim play basketball and things like that but there was little if any reporting that Craig and Donna were trying to patch things up. And a few years later someone reported seeing the legal documents indicating that they eventually got a divorce. Again, nothing ever mentioned to the twits about any of it.
Eye witness accounts here on the boards say that Donna and Rosie have been chummy for years. In some peoples' minds, a little TOO chummy if you get my drift. Even before Craig left, they were known to take shopping trips together, vacation together, sharing one hotel room... Could be nothing. But the fact that Rosalie had two well-known (supposedly ex-)lesbians living in the basement of her home for years, and the fact that Craig had such a hatred of homosexuals does make it look a certain way...
As for what life at HQ is like under Rosalie I can only surmise. Folks currently in twi would tell you it's just like back in the old days!! But I seriously doubt it.
She is the one who made her staff sign out for bathroom breaks in Way Pub. I had a friend who worked there and she wasn't even allowed to take a lunch break with me when I was in-rez and had a break because it wasn't her 'scheduled lunch time'. When I heard that Rosalie had been put in charge of Way Prod, I said something about it to this friend and in a very stiff tone she replied, "Well, she certainly knows how to get things done." This was so out of character I was too stunned to ask anything further (besides, this gal would never bad-mouth anyone no matter how deserving) but it didn't take too long for me to figure out that Rosalie was not well-liked by most 'joe-believers' who had to deal with her.
Edited by TheHighWayLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
and,
6. Beastiality.
that last item took them over sixty five years of "biblical research" to enable them to make a public statement that beastiality isn't exactly "kosher"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Ahhh, yesssss.... #6....the number for MAN, or is that beast??? Only 65 years? A new record, I'm sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Interesting...
So one possibility is that the 2 living in the basement (sharing 1 bed) potentially could have had something on Rosie & Donna such as knowing the true nature of their relationship, and so were protected. Craig's hatred of homos AND the kind of out there interpretation in his FNC of the original sin being lesbianism could point to him knowing about such a relationship, yet with those 2 having all the dirt on his escapades being powerless to do anything about it besides rant like a lunatic. The basement duo survived all the purges at HQ, and Janet even provided a lot of 'genuine spiritual suspicion' evidence (takes one to know one). Rosie gave them a lavish banquet when they left that nobody there could understand. There is evidence (can see on Wikipedia and published in a newspaper) that Rosie knew of Craig's escapades by 1995. It's quite a stretch to think that she wouldn't have told her good 'friend' Donna, and they potentially may have known years before this. Then they conspired to oust Craig. The reason given Donna didn't have to leave with Craig was 'she didn't know about it'. Yeah right. They've ousted more people than that for 'lack of CP1'. I hear in the new FNC they took out the lesbianism in Gen 3, and removed Craig's closing the class with Romans 1. Everything else is pretty much intact.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
so, in loy's mind.. I wonder if he really thought rosie was the devil, and donna was eve..
makes sense to me..
to this day it is said the loyster doesn't have a clue what he did was morally reprehensible.. he dumped a lot of that kind of "legalism" long ago..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Caveman
Sounds kind of like the Whitehouse. Do you think Hillery, I mean Donna will run for President after Rosalie's term is up?
This sounds familiar. Bach when the melt down started we were calling Debouski and Lynn and them "the dark side." As I look back on it now, we were the ones being kept in the dark.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Well, it's worked for them so far, so-other than it being morally wrong, why would they
stop using that method?
Their followers (their term, remember, not mine) are given what's been called
"the mushroom treatment"-
being kept in the dark, with manure shovelled in periodically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
That's very interesting Chockful. So they gave Janet and her "best" friend a banquet before they left? I had heard they were thrown out and left suddenly. So, I guess that was wrong, they were wined and dined.
I think what VP and LCM taught about being the "original sin" is nothing but a projection of their own sexual fantasies onto the fall. If you read other people's take on it, its always something that has to do with them. You can see the same thing in the writings of philosophers, eventually their "philosophy" is really about them.
They ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Who knows what it was. But LCM seeing the tree as a penis is whacked - his utterly corrupted seared conscience wishing it so.
I would imagine since Janet was sent away so lavishly, they all still keep in touch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Caveman
I still think it was a tree.
Did it really? They has 200,000 members 22 years ago, and 600 now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
hey sunesis!
as i was reading this thread, i had the very same thought...
and the first word that came to me was: projection...
personally, i don't see the need to sexualize the original sin...
i know it was a sin of pride and disobedience... and that's good enough for me...
caveman,
so they are down to 600 members?... that's a good thing!
perhaps they will eventually die off...
and the wierwille kingdom will become a faded memory...
chockfull,
there's a new class called FNC?
what does FNC stand for?
peace to all,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Hello Jen-O.
I was reading about a Christian guy who was a pothead, and he was just so sure the tree they ate of was pot - or a drug that got one high. Because, when they ate, the fruit "opened their eyes" (i.e., they were high, beyond normal consciousness) and they knew they were naked - that's as good an interpretation as any I guess - LOL. But it does make my point, people project what they're into onto the poor tree.
I do know that we do see both trees again in the Book of Revelation in the New Jerusalem in the millenium and they are freely available to all, the leaves are for the healing of the nations.
So, if TWI were really following its own principles, and following their usage in the Bible, since they appear in the New Jerusalem in the millenium and have nothing to do with sex, drugs, or rock n'roll (I threw that one in :) ), I would imagine both VP's and LCM's interpretations are dead wrong.
Phony MOG's, false prophets they were/are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Sunesis, I think Revelation only mentions the tree of life which many theologians believe is Christ himself.
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.