is this "about the way" or should it be moved to general discussion? this sounds like a doctrinal discussion christian vs. "unbeliever" so I'm not interested.
in case you're interested, "good" is an issue of "morality" or conscience. reading some of the studies on the sociopathic brain might help answer your question.
bean, i definitely don't know how to answer the question(s). recently some teenagers here (ages 16, 17s) beat a man (for no apparent reason) and he died. i somewhat know two of them. the HS kids know all of them. the kids are in shock. this community is SHOCKED. i am beyond shocked. i am so brokenhearted over this. i wish i could understand or go back and look at their short pasts to see if this would help me understand. i only know one of them got beat daily by his father for his whole young life. does that excuse? of course not! i'm just trying to understand. and i'm sick over it. there's no going back, is there?
ps. i'm hoping the little boy from oregon is somehow alive
Okay, here is a real event. I know little more detail than noted below.
In the city where I now live, a young woman of about 21 went missing after a night out with friends visiting local night clubs. Her friends admit they were all a little (cough) inebriated when they left. A couple of months ago, and some 13 or 14 years after her disappearance, her decomposed remains have turned up in a plastic bag at a motorway junction. Last week, a man walked into the city's police station and confessed to the killing. He's about 34 or so now; so was about the same age as the victim when she disappeared.
Question: suppose it was some drunken sexual encounter that went horribly wrong? Suppose the man was drunk, that the encounter went wrong (maybe she laughed at him and he hit her too hard?) - he panicked, perhaps, drove off and tried to hide the body. Or maybe he was a jealous ex-boyfriend who intentionally killed her because she left him? (No details have been released by the police.)
Suppose when sober or his rage at rejection was abated, the man was horrified by what he did, and has lived an exemplary life since, avoiding drink and substances or situations that make him lose self-control? Maybe he had an abused upbringing, where violence was the answer to any problem? Maybe he has voluntarily undertaken anger management course(s)? Maybe he has married and is now raising kids in a proper and very responsible manner?
Should such a man face a murder trial that might result in his imprisonment for a very long period? What would be the point - if he has become rehabilitated? What about the effect of depriving his kids of a good role model? (Note: I'm not saying "no punishment.")
(I emphasise that I know nothing about the man who's confessed; it's even possible that he's a wannabe, one of those strange people who confess even though there's no possibility they could be the perpetrator - though I doubt it, in this case. ...I do know that 20 year old young people when drunk do all sorts of things they wouldn't do when sober.)
Should such a man face a murder trial that might result in his imprisonment for a very long period? What would be the point - if he has become rehabilitated?
Since when would it be "ok" to NOT hold someone accountable and have to pay the consequences or pay 'less" than what every other criminal does?
If even for one time, you allow a person off the hook for a lesser sentence, then you create a loophole. One that every psychopath in the world will seek to hide under. Yeah, sure, all I have to do after killing someone I hate, is be nice! Ok, fine. So be it.. Now I can kill anyone I want.. Do you really think that's wise?
You take away consequences for anyone, or make them less than the "norm", then you'll end up doing the same for those who shouldn't.
To bring it back to the primary topic of TWI.. Even if they turned the ministry around and Rosie or LCM or even if VP was still alive, and started doing charity work, yeah, sorry, I believe there must be consequences, and since one can't know another's heart always and motives can be hidden, those consequences shouldn't be lessened. Is that cold and heartless? No, I think it teaches people right from wrong. Rather than a murderers kids thinking his dad got off lightily, they realize, there are real consequences so you better think before you act.
Course, that's my opinion.. Would love to hear an opposing view and reasons though?
T&O, people are constantly let off the hook and given lesser sentences. It's called plea bargaining. And it's essential for the "justice" system (cough) to work because otherwise it would be bogged down with lengthy trials.
And also, even if there is no plea bargain, juries have been known to take a view that a murder verdict is not appropriate (eg, a man puts a pillow over the face of a terminally ill spouse or child - clear intention to end life - but a merciful verdict would be manslaughter - much lesser sentence possible.)
What is the purpose of prison?
To protect the public? Why, if a person has voluntarily reformed?
To reform the offender? Think again, it never happens! (And I'm proposing a reformed character here anyway.) Imprisoned criminals usually end up either better more cunning criminals, or forced to recidivism (repeat offending) because of their unemployability afterwards.
To state public rejection of certain types of behavior? In that case, there'd be no more thieves or killers or any other kind of criminal - clearly not the case.
To deter others? Clearly doesn't work; people still offend.
Did you ever read anything by Nicky Cruz, T&O? A notorious gang leader, held his city in terror - was preached the gospel and became a reformed character and is now as full-on for God as he was full-on for terrorizing neighborhoods. Nicky Cruz bio
No reason to suppose Melanie's killer is the Nicky Cruz of the area. I'm just musing about appropriate outcomes.
I think I am basically asking this question about non- believers whether or not if you think they have any good left in their hearts or not. I think that is probably why these people commit the act of murder anyway because they are not of God and can't know how to behave like a person of God.
Are their hearts able to recover any ounce of what they were before they committed this act of violence?
I would start by asking you to define your terms. What is a non-believer? Is it someone whose doctrine differs from TWIs? differs from yours? Is non=Christian?
How do you know if someone is "of God" or not? Does not God condone violence at times in the Bible? There were most certainly wars and the such documented there. David committed murder did he not? Was he a non-believer then?
It's not so easy to discuss these kinds of things as it is to present the ideas for the discussion!
There are way to many "what if's". Who really knows what's truly in the heart of a man (or woman)? And I have to tell you, in some matters, a person's heart can change! (Well, at least mine has).
If someone has done a murder and subsequently has changed to the extent that it's likely to never happen again....what is the purpose of imprisonment? Those things listed above, deterrent, punishment....why? Just because you can? If they are withheld, I think it's called mercy.
Grace and mercy has been given to us bountifully. When we can, shouldn't we also pass it on?
is this "about the way" or should it be moved to general discussion?
Maybe your right potato, it is not intended for "about the way," and should be moved. I looked before posting this topic and couldn't find one that seemed best for the subject. Where is that thread?
[quote name=Twinky' date='04 July 2010 - 03:36 PM' timestamp='1278286565' post='5041
Question: suppose it was some drunken sexual encounter that went horribly wrong? Suppose the man was drunk, that the encounter went wrong (maybe she laughed at him and he hit her too hard?) - he panicked, perhaps, drove off and tried to hide the body. Or maybe he was a jealous ex-boyfriend who intentionally killed her because she left him?
I'm sure this has happened more times than we think! More times than we will ever know.
Suppose when sober or his rage at rejection was abated, the man was horrified by what he did, and has lived an exemplary life since, avoiding drink and substances or situations that make him lose self-control?
This is along the line that I am suggesting. Is it possible for someone who has murdered another person and kept to himself for a number of years to maintain a disciplined life one free from any more violence? This is to say he has changed his heart and now has repented of his wrong doing.
Should such a man face a murder trial that might result in his imprisonment for a very long period?
Definitely he/she should. I couldn't see his act of violence upon another person go on without some cost or penalty, even if it was only a crime of passion gone a wry.
bean, i definitely don't know how to answer the question(s). recently some teenagers here (ages 16, 17s) beat a man (for no apparent reason) and he died. i somewhat know two of them. the HS kids know all of them. the kids are in shock. this community is SHOCKED. i am beyond shocked. i am so brokenhearted over this. i wish i could understand or go back and look at their short pasts to see if this would help me understand. i only know one of them got beat daily by his father for his whole young life. does that excuse? of course not! i'm just trying to understand. and i'm sick over it. there's no going back, is there?
ps. i'm hoping the little boy from oregon is somehow alive
If known people who have known people who have been close to others who have been murdered. It breaks a family apart. It leaves scars for the rest of people's lives.
T&O, people are constantly let off the hook and given lesser sentences. It's called plea bargaining. And it's essential for the "justice" system (cough) to work because otherwise it would be bogged down with lengthy trials.
Is that an actual valid reason, just because we have busy judges/courts/public costs?! Yeah, we're just too busy, so you get a free ride.. Yes, I know it happens. It's how many get out of traffic tickets, and even some petty crimes. And just gives people more reason to keep on doing it!
Prison - To protect the public? Why, if a person has voluntarily reformed?
And can anyone guarantee someone has been reformed? Just cause they haven't been caught doing anything else, just cause they seem nicer. I think we all have heard of many cases were those who were "supposed" reformed only went and committed more crimes, sometimes more evil, and some the very day they were let out.
To state public rejection of certain types of behavior? In that case, there'd be no more thieves or killers or any other kind of criminal - clearly not the case.
To deter others? Clearly doesn't work; people still offend.
Just because crimes happen doesn't mean the known consequences haven't deterred the many that would have happened had there been no or less consequences. Some people will no matter what. However, if they know I have a loaded gun, they sure ain't going to break into my house here where we have a castle law. You betcha they know the consequence, and they won't risk it.
Did you ever read anything by Nicky Cruz, T&O?
I have.. I also know many who have come out of Prison changed personally. In fact, I have given a couple of ex-convicts a job. My best employee came from there, was awesome for over a year, turned to God before being paroled from reading one of Nicky's book and red hot for God when he left prison, but ended up having a fight with his girlfriend which got him back into drugs cause he couldn't handle the pressure. Had to let him go (He's back in prison now). So yes, I know people "can" change. And they "can" change back. While I have nothing against showing mercy, there are some things while forgiveness is available, I believe there still ought to be consequences. Just because Adam and Eve were forgiven, didn't mean we still don't live in this fallen world today because of it. Consequences are still part of life.
I wanted to ask this question as a discussion to the GSC members to get their opinions about the heart of a murderer. (What's in their hearts?) Evil only! Some Good!
Some of you may have heard of the 7 year old boy from Oregon in the news lately, Kyron Hormon. He disappeared and hasn't been seen since. The outcome of this story remains to be seen. Only a small percentage of these kids ever come back safe.
There is no doubt murderers walking the streets who have killed people. Whether they killed their victims a month or a year, or 12 years ago is not important. The point is that not all murderers get caught and are able to trick society into thinking that they are one of the rest of us non-murderer types.
Some real plot added for context < When I was 19 yrs old I was caught drinking in a bar and was held in detention over the weekend until I was arraigned. In my holding cell on the 3rd floor I overheard a couple of guys talking from the floor below me about a murder that one of them committed.
I don't know what ever became of it. Whether the story was true or not. It could have been true, or it could of been just some career criminal wanting to scare the pants off of a 19 yr.old fresh off the streets. I don't know >.
Still the point remains that murderers have been around since the fall, (or right after)!
I think I am basically asking this question about non- believers whether or not if you think they have any good left in their hearts or not. I think that is probably why these people commit the act of murder anyway because they are not of God and can't know how to behave like a person of God.
Are their hearts able to recover any ounce of what they were before they committed this act of violence?
You said:There is no doubt murderers walking the streets who have killed people
In answer to the question of those walking the streets who have murdered, it is not much different than the verse in I John 2:19
1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
These people are different. They come from the womb just like us, but they do not share the values. HMMM that would make them value-less (i.e. without value) Baal.
Any crime is incubated in the mind. All sin begins with a thought and ends with rationalization to the point of justification.
According to the stuff we learned in the AC, they are possessed by virtue that a natural man would not voluntarily commit such an act. Right!
It's my opinion this should stay in About The Way, not because of the subject matter, but, because the discussion, itself, demonstrates the concept of "us vs. them", "believer vs. unbeliever", "devil spirit instigated" mindset that The Way promoted.
Example
"I think I am basically asking this question about non- believers whether or not if you think they have any good left in their hearts or not. I think that is probably why these people commit the act of murder anyway because they are not of God and can't know how to behave like a person of God.
Are their hearts able to recover any ounce of what they were before they committed this act of violence?"
Personally, I think the Advanced Class was a load of horse crap. But, for the sake of establishing a point of reference, here is some background on what was presented in the class.
(a) Natural man of just body and soul would not murder.
(b) Spiritual man of body, soul and spirit would not murder.
(c ) Thus, one in whom a spirit of murder dwells is the only one who would murder.
First, for any non-PFAL grad reading this, it's important to understand that Wierwille taught a concept called "The Threefold Nature of Man". According to this concept, when one is born, they have body (physical presence), soul (breath life), but no spirit. Further, wierwille taught that man became a threefold being when he became born-again and received the gift of holy spirit. Thus he was now body, soul AND spirit. Can anyone else see the statistical problems this would create with items (a) and (c )?
In addition, Wierwille taught that a "spirit of murder" is a devil spirit that is very selective about whom it will inhabit, searching tirelessly for the ideal condition to present itself.
Now, on the very same syllabus page, directly preceeding this section is this contradictory quote.
(2) "A born-again believer may become afflicted with evil spirits.[Wierwille undoubtedly "borrowed" this section because it was completely out of character for him to use ANY term other than "devil spirit"]The spirits may affect or possess mind and/or body, but not the spirit."
It all sounds so heavy and esoteric. It's really just a lot of mumbo-jumbo being presented by a man who had no formal training in how the mind works. In other words-----useless.
There are all sorts of crimes and civil suits that have statutes of limitation on them but murder is not one of them. Hiding a corpse, not allowing closure for years or even decades for the victim's family is a hideous act. Human life really can't be replaced making it impossible to put a monetary value on it.
Selfishly going about your life and just not killing again doesn't make up for the human life you took. Running to confess when the body is found shows no remorse.
I worked with a man that was an assistant minister and youth minister. Dave high as a kite one night years before walked into a bar with a 12 gauge double barrel and blew the pimp's head off that had been putting his stripper wife out for tricks. With a bar full of witnesses Dave went to the pen for life. While appealing his conviction he became born again and believed with all his heart he deserved to be executed.
After only 5 years his conviction was overturned and he was released. He would gladly tell you but for the grace and mercy of God he deserved to die and he lives his live in service because he is on borrowed time.
I think there is no excuse or reason that outweighs the taking of a life. In my friend's case he went through the judicial system and had to give the glory to God for being alive. Even Dave still admitted he was a murdered……..
In addition, Wierwille taught that a "spirit of murder" is a devil spirit that is very selective about whom it will inhabit, searching tirelessly for the ideal condition to present itself.
I wonder if Weirdwille thought that that "spirit of murder" inhabited King David when he set up Uriah to be killed.
I wonder if Weirdwille thought that that "spirit of murder" inhabited King David when he set up Uriah to be killed.
I have no way of knowing what he really thought or believed. All I can do is make a comparison to how this fits with what he taught. In that regard, it fits perfectly because he taught that spirit (the Godly variety) was placed "on" select individuals in the O.T. as a temporary measure rather than "in" them as a permanent arrangement (Christ "in" you/seed/ new birth/gift of holy spirit of the N.T.)
So, by Wierwille's reasoning, it was simply a matter of one or the other inhabiting David at any given point in time.
I still don't buy it but I hope that explains what we were taught.
I think I am basically asking this question about non- believers whether or not if you think they have any good left in their hearts or not. I think that is probably why these people commit the act of murder anyway because they are not of God and can't know how to behave like a person of God.
Are their hearts able to recover any ounce of what they were before they committed this act of violence?
Since I know you like movies, here's a question: Lennie Small, from Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" -- evil or not evil?
Since I know you like movies, here's a question: Lennie Small, from Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" -- evil or not evil?
How about George?
That's tough one. I played George in a studio excercise many years ago. The guy who played Lennie went on to become a fairly well known actor (amongst his peers) and still successfully practices his craft. Looking back, I think we probably spent as much, if not more, time studying the characters and trying to understand them as we did running lines.
That's a good example, soul searcher, of how not everything in life is always as "black and white" as it seems.
For those who are unfamiliar with the plot, you can find it HERE.
Maybe it's like whoever said that it is a matter of being "temporarily inhabited" by an evil spirit. Lenny was harmless most of the time but dangerous when angry.
Recommended Posts
potato
is this "about the way" or should it be moved to general discussion? this sounds like a doctrinal discussion christian vs. "unbeliever" so I'm not interested.
in case you're interested, "good" is an issue of "morality" or conscience. reading some of the studies on the sociopathic brain might help answer your question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
bean, i definitely don't know how to answer the question(s). recently some teenagers here (ages 16, 17s) beat a man (for no apparent reason) and he died. i somewhat know two of them. the HS kids know all of them. the kids are in shock. this community is SHOCKED. i am beyond shocked. i am so brokenhearted over this. i wish i could understand or go back and look at their short pasts to see if this would help me understand. i only know one of them got beat daily by his father for his whole young life. does that excuse? of course not! i'm just trying to understand. and i'm sick over it. there's no going back, is there?
ps. i'm hoping the little boy from oregon is somehow alive
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
Remember the Psych 101 question 'do you think like a psychopath?'
A woman's mama died and at the funeral, she met the most amazing man and they talked. She fell in love with him right then and there.
He failed to get her number or she his.
A few months later, she killed her own sister. Do you know why?
For the sake of time and interest, the answer, of course, is that she assumed the man she loved would show up at her sisters funeral.
And, that is, in fact, how a psychopath's brain works.
Edited by ShellonLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Okay, here is a real event. I know little more detail than noted below.
In the city where I now live, a young woman of about 21 went missing after a night out with friends visiting local night clubs. Her friends admit they were all a little (cough) inebriated when they left. A couple of months ago, and some 13 or 14 years after her disappearance, her decomposed remains have turned up in a plastic bag at a motorway junction. Last week, a man walked into the city's police station and confessed to the killing. He's about 34 or so now; so was about the same age as the victim when she disappeared.
Question: suppose it was some drunken sexual encounter that went horribly wrong? Suppose the man was drunk, that the encounter went wrong (maybe she laughed at him and he hit her too hard?) - he panicked, perhaps, drove off and tried to hide the body. Or maybe he was a jealous ex-boyfriend who intentionally killed her because she left him? (No details have been released by the police.)
Suppose when sober or his rage at rejection was abated, the man was horrified by what he did, and has lived an exemplary life since, avoiding drink and substances or situations that make him lose self-control? Maybe he had an abused upbringing, where violence was the answer to any problem? Maybe he has voluntarily undertaken anger management course(s)? Maybe he has married and is now raising kids in a proper and very responsible manner?
Should such a man face a murder trial that might result in his imprisonment for a very long period? What would be the point - if he has become rehabilitated? What about the effect of depriving his kids of a good role model? (Note: I'm not saying "no punishment.")
(I emphasise that I know nothing about the man who's confessed; it's even possible that he's a wannabe, one of those strange people who confess even though there's no possibility they could be the perpetrator - though I doubt it, in this case. ...I do know that 20 year old young people when drunk do all sorts of things they wouldn't do when sober.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i've recently read that when you're drunk and have held anger in all along you might bring that rage out when drunk
i'm just talking, not excusing, not answering, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Since when would it be "ok" to NOT hold someone accountable and have to pay the consequences or pay 'less" than what every other criminal does?
If even for one time, you allow a person off the hook for a lesser sentence, then you create a loophole. One that every psychopath in the world will seek to hide under. Yeah, sure, all I have to do after killing someone I hate, is be nice! Ok, fine. So be it.. Now I can kill anyone I want.. Do you really think that's wise?
You take away consequences for anyone, or make them less than the "norm", then you'll end up doing the same for those who shouldn't.
To bring it back to the primary topic of TWI.. Even if they turned the ministry around and Rosie or LCM or even if VP was still alive, and started doing charity work, yeah, sorry, I believe there must be consequences, and since one can't know another's heart always and motives can be hidden, those consequences shouldn't be lessened. Is that cold and heartless? No, I think it teaches people right from wrong. Rather than a murderers kids thinking his dad got off lightily, they realize, there are real consequences so you better think before you act.
Course, that's my opinion.. Would love to hear an opposing view and reasons though?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
T&O, people are constantly let off the hook and given lesser sentences. It's called plea bargaining. And it's essential for the "justice" system (cough) to work because otherwise it would be bogged down with lengthy trials.
And also, even if there is no plea bargain, juries have been known to take a view that a murder verdict is not appropriate (eg, a man puts a pillow over the face of a terminally ill spouse or child - clear intention to end life - but a merciful verdict would be manslaughter - much lesser sentence possible.)
What is the purpose of prison?
Did you ever read anything by Nicky Cruz, T&O? A notorious gang leader, held his city in terror - was preached the gospel and became a reformed character and is now as full-on for God as he was full-on for terrorizing neighborhoods. Nicky Cruz bio
No reason to suppose Melanie's killer is the Nicky Cruz of the area. I'm just musing about appropriate outcomes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I would start by asking you to define your terms. What is a non-believer? Is it someone whose doctrine differs from TWIs? differs from yours? Is non=Christian?
How do you know if someone is "of God" or not? Does not God condone violence at times in the Bible? There were most certainly wars and the such documented there. David committed murder did he not? Was he a non-believer then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Believer's capabilities vs. the capabilities of an unbeliever?
Went down that road in the Advanced Class.
Don't care to go down it again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
It's not so easy to discuss these kinds of things as it is to present the ideas for the discussion!
There are way to many "what if's". Who really knows what's truly in the heart of a man (or woman)? And I have to tell you, in some matters, a person's heart can change! (Well, at least mine has).
If someone has done a murder and subsequently has changed to the extent that it's likely to never happen again....what is the purpose of imprisonment? Those things listed above, deterrent, punishment....why? Just because you can? If they are withheld, I think it's called mercy.
Grace and mercy has been given to us bountifully. When we can, shouldn't we also pass it on?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
[quote name=Twinky' date='04 July 2010 - 03:36 PM' timestamp='1278286565' post='5041
Question: suppose it was some drunken sexual encounter that went horribly wrong? Suppose the man was drunk, that the encounter went wrong (maybe she laughed at him and he hit her too hard?) - he panicked, perhaps, drove off and tried to hide the body. Or maybe he was a jealous ex-boyfriend who intentionally killed her because she left him?
I'm sure this has happened more times than we think! More times than we will ever know.
Suppose when sober or his rage at rejection was abated, the man was horrified by what he did, and has lived an exemplary life since, avoiding drink and substances or situations that make him lose self-control?
This is along the line that I am suggesting. Is it possible for someone who has murdered another person and kept to himself for a number of years to maintain a disciplined life one free from any more violence? This is to say he has changed his heart and now has repented of his wrong doing.
Should such a man face a murder trial that might result in his imprisonment for a very long period?
Definitely he/she should. I couldn't see his act of violence upon another person go on without some cost or penalty, even if it was only a crime of passion gone a wry.
Edited by Human without the beanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
If known people who have known people who have been close to others who have been murdered. It breaks a family apart. It leaves scars for the rest of people's lives.
I hope the boy is somehow alive too excathedra.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Is that an actual valid reason, just because we have busy judges/courts/public costs?! Yeah, we're just too busy, so you get a free ride.. Yes, I know it happens. It's how many get out of traffic tickets, and even some petty crimes. And just gives people more reason to keep on doing it!
And can anyone guarantee someone has been reformed? Just cause they haven't been caught doing anything else, just cause they seem nicer. I think we all have heard of many cases were those who were "supposed" reformed only went and committed more crimes, sometimes more evil, and some the very day they were let out.
Just because crimes happen doesn't mean the known consequences haven't deterred the many that would have happened had there been no or less consequences. Some people will no matter what. However, if they know I have a loaded gun, they sure ain't going to break into my house here where we have a castle law. You betcha they know the consequence, and they won't risk it.
I have.. I also know many who have come out of Prison changed personally. In fact, I have given a couple of ex-convicts a job. My best employee came from there, was awesome for over a year, turned to God before being paroled from reading one of Nicky's book and red hot for God when he left prison, but ended up having a fight with his girlfriend which got him back into drugs cause he couldn't handle the pressure. Had to let him go (He's back in prison now). So yes, I know people "can" change. And they "can" change back. While I have nothing against showing mercy, there are some things while forgiveness is available, I believe there still ought to be consequences. Just because Adam and Eve were forgiven, didn't mean we still don't live in this fallen world today because of it. Consequences are still part of life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YID
You said:There is no doubt murderers walking the streets who have killed people
In answer to the question of those walking the streets who have murdered, it is not much different than the verse in I John 2:19
1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
These people are different. They come from the womb just like us, but they do not share the values. HMMM that would make them value-less (i.e. without value) Baal.
Any crime is incubated in the mind. All sin begins with a thought and ends with rationalization to the point of justification.
According to the stuff we learned in the AC, they are possessed by virtue that a natural man would not voluntarily commit such an act. Right!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's my opinion this should stay in About The Way, not because of the subject matter, but, because the discussion, itself, demonstrates the concept of "us vs. them", "believer vs. unbeliever", "devil spirit instigated" mindset that The Way promoted.
Example
"I think I am basically asking this question about non- believers whether or not if you think they have any good left in their hearts or not. I think that is probably why these people commit the act of murder anyway because they are not of God and can't know how to behave like a person of God.
Are their hearts able to recover any ounce of what they were before they committed this act of violence?"
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Personally, I think the Advanced Class was a load of horse crap. But, for the sake of establishing a point of reference, here is some background on what was presented in the class.
Page 19 ( ©1971)
(a) Natural man of just body and soul would not murder.
(b) Spiritual man of body, soul and spirit would not murder.
(c ) Thus, one in whom a spirit of murder dwells is the only one who would murder.
First, for any non-PFAL grad reading this, it's important to understand that Wierwille taught a concept called "The Threefold Nature of Man". According to this concept, when one is born, they have body (physical presence), soul (breath life), but no spirit. Further, wierwille taught that man became a threefold being when he became born-again and received the gift of holy spirit. Thus he was now body, soul AND spirit. Can anyone else see the statistical problems this would create with items (a) and (c )?
In addition, Wierwille taught that a "spirit of murder" is a devil spirit that is very selective about whom it will inhabit, searching tirelessly for the ideal condition to present itself.
Now, on the very same syllabus page, directly preceeding this section is this contradictory quote.
(2) "A born-again believer may become afflicted with evil spirits. [Wierwille undoubtedly "borrowed" this section because it was completely out of character for him to use ANY term other than "devil spirit"] The spirits may affect or possess mind and/or body, but not the spirit."
It all sounds so heavy and esoteric. It's really just a lot of mumbo-jumbo being presented by a man who had no formal training in how the mind works. In other words-----useless.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
There are all sorts of crimes and civil suits that have statutes of limitation on them but murder is not one of them. Hiding a corpse, not allowing closure for years or even decades for the victim's family is a hideous act. Human life really can't be replaced making it impossible to put a monetary value on it.
Selfishly going about your life and just not killing again doesn't make up for the human life you took. Running to confess when the body is found shows no remorse.
I worked with a man that was an assistant minister and youth minister. Dave high as a kite one night years before walked into a bar with a 12 gauge double barrel and blew the pimp's head off that had been putting his stripper wife out for tricks. With a bar full of witnesses Dave went to the pen for life. While appealing his conviction he became born again and believed with all his heart he deserved to be executed.
After only 5 years his conviction was overturned and he was released. He would gladly tell you but for the grace and mercy of God he deserved to die and he lives his live in service because he is on borrowed time.
I think there is no excuse or reason that outweighs the taking of a life. In my friend's case he went through the judicial system and had to give the glory to God for being alive. Even Dave still admitted he was a murdered……..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
I wonder if Weirdwille thought that that "spirit of murder" inhabited King David when he set up Uriah to be killed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I have no way of knowing what he really thought or believed. All I can do is make a comparison to how this fits with what he taught. In that regard, it fits perfectly because he taught that spirit (the Godly variety) was placed "on" select individuals in the O.T. as a temporary measure rather than "in" them as a permanent arrangement (Christ "in" you/seed/ new birth/gift of holy spirit of the N.T.)
So, by Wierwille's reasoning, it was simply a matter of one or the other inhabiting David at any given point in time.
I still don't buy it but I hope that explains what we were taught.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Since I know you like movies, here's a question: Lennie Small, from Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" -- evil or not evil?
How about George?
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
Tried something. Well that didn't work! Oops ignore this.
Edited by Human without the beanLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That's tough one. I played George in a studio excercise many years ago. The guy who played Lennie went on to become a fairly well known actor (amongst his peers) and still successfully practices his craft. Looking back, I think we probably spent as much, if not more, time studying the characters and trying to understand them as we did running lines.
That's a good example, soul searcher, of how not everything in life is always as "black and white" as it seems.
For those who are unfamiliar with the plot, you can find it HERE.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Maybe it's like whoever said that it is a matter of being "temporarily inhabited" by an evil spirit. Lenny was harmless most of the time but dangerous when angry.
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.