Well, I guess we've run this topic in the ground already. Not much to say about this same ole - same ole with TWI. Just proves that nothing really has changed with them despite all the claims to the contrary. Me doth think they protest too much!
Give us more money
Bring us more people to bring us money
Pay for more of our stuff
Obey everything WE say, forget God and Jesus, we'll tell you if they're right or not.
Pray for US so that we can keep taking your money and living this nice cushy lifestyle.
How did they ever get to YHAT? Wouldn't she have to have been Bi? Or do they say that Even didn't bear Adam children because she was gay?
If they believe stuff like that; they're not dong research, they're doing magic!
I doubt that they believe it, but it's being taught. The wacky teaching is mainly supported by invented or twisted meanings of several Hebrew words. I don't have time right now HCW, but I'll email or private topic you the basics of that nonsense later - I really don't want to derail the thread or put anyone to sleep. :)-->
Thanks Oaksp. Got it read it. Still think the whole concept is nuts. Eve switched teams because she saw what? A really sexy looking snake?
Then Adam said "Oohh Eveie baby, what you did was cool with me!"
God got mad & kicked 'em both out of the Garden. Then Eve switched back and became the Mother of all people. Her seed must be people who are "born gay" right?
Taken from 1995 foundational class regarding Eve, should anyone not have seen it before.
quote:
Genesis 3:6
This verse is loaded with sexual terminology. The literal sin here had to be in the sexual category.
"saw" = to feel and enjoy; to look with pleasure. [Jeremiah 15:16 – To eat of it means to accept the idea mentally.] What the adversary has her looking at with pleasure is contrary to what God said was available.
"tree" – used for idols; object of worship; groves
"food" = dainty foods; delicacies; meat of desire [Job 33:20] [Genesis 2:24 is the godly relationship, which includes sex.]
"eyes" = ayin (Hebrew) – a homonym: fountain, refers to sexual climax. A homonym is a term that can have two or more meanings.
"to be desired" = to delight in selfishly and inordinately; to be desired from a sexually selfish point of view. What is the most selfish sexual act? Homosexuality. It's a sexual temptation in a category that is totally the opposite to how God set it up in the beginning. Homosexuality will directly contrast the command to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. They do not produce progeny.
"wise" = sakal (Hebrew) – to act wisely; to understand. In her mind Eve thought she would be so much wiser. [John 10:10a] Homonym: to lay crosswise or cross over [Genesis 48:14]; to cross over God's boundary.
"she took" = laqach (Hebrew) – to be carried away by passion; enticed away; lambano (Greek) – to bring into manifestation, into concretion.
"gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat" – What happened with Adam?
Thanks house for the quotes - I added a few of my comments
quote:
Originally posted by houseisarockin:
Taken from 1995 foundational class regarding Eve, should anyone not have seen it before.
quote:
Genesis 3:6
This verse is loaded with sexual terminology. The literal sin here had to be in the sexual category.
As anyone who actually "works" the words saw, the verse is NOT loaded with sexual terminology, Martindale assumed what he set out to prove. Logically, even if the words did have sexual connotations, that does not mean that the literal sin had to be in the sexual category
"saw" = to feel and enjoy; to look with pleasure. [Jeremiah 15:16 – To eat of it means to accept the idea mentally.] What the adversary has her looking at with pleasure is contrary to what God said was available.
The main problem with this is that the word translated "saw" is the normal and usual word for "saw". It is a neutral word that could be used for seeing in all kinds of categories, like God "saw" that his creation was good. Same word.
"tree" – used for idols; object of worship; groves
Also used of just plain ol' trees
"food" = dainty foods; delicacies; meat of desire [Job 33:20] [Genesis 2:24 is the godly relationship, which includes sex.]
This is one of the few words that could have a sexual connotation, although it would be way out of context to assign that connotation here
"eyes" = ayin (Hebrew) – a homonym: fountain, refers to sexual climax. A homonym is a term that can have two or more meanings.
Martindale proves that he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about...again. A fountain was referred to figuratively as an "eye", since it was usually in the center of a village, landscape, what have you. Hebrew of course being rich in the figurative use of body parts to describe geographic features as well as emotions and states of mind. Not strictly a homonym, but we'll let that go.
So friggin' WHAT if there is a homonym of 'ayin (eyes) that is translated "fountain"? Do we use the definition of "bank"( financial institution) to give us insight on what a "bank shot" is? No! They are SEPARATE WORDS, that just happen to be spelled the same.
Finally, 'ayin as "fountain" does not apply to a female climax.
"to be desired" = to delight in selfishly and inordinately; to be desired from a sexually selfish point of view.
Could be sexual, but the rest of the context does not support that meaning
What is the most selfish sexual act? Homosexuality. It's a sexual temptation in a category that is totally the opposite to how God set it up in the beginning. Homosexuality will directly contrast the command to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. They do not produce progeny.
Why, of course. Martindale has been promoting his anti-homosexuality agenda for several years when this class was recorded, so why wouldn't he see evidense for homosexuality everywhere?
"wise" = sakal (Hebrew) – to act wisely; to understand. In her mind Eve thought she would be so much wiser. [John 10:10a] Homonym: to lay crosswise or cross over [Genesis 48:14]; to cross over God's boundary.
Look up the definitions and usages of sakal. In most situations it clearly means "wise". "To lay crosswise" is a secondary meaning that does not apply to the tense of the word in this verse. Anyway, "to lay crosswise" does not equal "to cross over", God's boundary or anything else.
And he throws his moronic misunderstanding of what a homonym is in there.
"she took" = laqach (Hebrew) – to be carried away by passion; enticed away; lambano (Greek) – to bring into manifestation, into concretion.
Have we figured out by now that this word is the normal and usual word for "took"? No sexual reference
"gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat" – What happened with Adam?
In 2001 I sent my analysis and comments to a member of the Board of Trustees who referred me to my Region Coordinator. TH, the Region guy, listened to what I had to say, then told me that "even if there isn't scripture to back up the teaching, it has to be true because of what we know about homosexuality".
"gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat" – What happened with Adam?
Thanks house, never seen dat before, laid out in all it's glaw-ry.
Sooooo...did Martindale suggest this all ended up in some kind of funky 3-way? A sexual Do-Re-Me Too?
I'd have to wonder, if Eve's sin was homosexuality and she gave it to Adam and he ate it too (don't go there!!!) then why wouldn't it mean his sin was homosexuality too? Did he cover that?
If the sin was a sexual relationship with the Devil-in-a-blue-dress-and-spikey-heels, and the original sin was homosexuality and she gave it to her husband (sounds like a cold or something)
why wouldn't that mean that his sin was homosexuality? It wouldn't be if he was sharing the love with two women.
I think Martindale might have ayin messed up too, amongst other things.
Compared to his teaching an apple sounds much easier to swallow. (don't go there!!!!) :D-->
"any means" – any means that the adversary would have access to
"beguiled" = seduced. It carries a heavy sexual connotation; and that is very important to understanding the first sin of mankind. Technically the "original sin" was Lucifer's.
"simplicity" = haplotes – single-mindedness. They would be corrupted from their single-mindedness to love God and His Word and keep the Word first.
This attraction and distraction must have been just stunning, breathtaking, to distract a woman as sharp as Eve. When you become double-minded, then it's difficult to do what's correct. You don't see clearly; you can't perform clearly.
Genesis 3:3
"lest [perhaps] ye die" – That's changing the emphasis and impact of the message God had given in Genesis 2:17. The serpent stunned her with his brilliance and distracted her. She gets wrapped up in it in her mind and her logic unravels so quickly.
(I took parts of section out of above not related, below similarly.)
Eve took from the serpent. Adam never had any direct confrontation with the serpent. Adam then took from Eve. Adam ate what Eve offered him; Eve ate what the serpent directly offered her. She not only mentally accepted the idea, she took it – into manifestation. [Jeremiah 15:16] – Adam accepted the concept. Clearly the most cataclysmic sin throughout the Word is homosexuality - [Romans 1:26,27].
Craig, do you still have time to halt the new teaching that covers this subject? If so email the fox and tell her to give it up.
You really never believed the woman would be so over whelmed to have partaken in pleasure with another woman; after all she had only known a man. Why would you assume because of Romans that it would take this to overcome her? Give it up yourself Craig.
Hey EVERYONE! Rock and ROLLLLLL!!! Skiier is back in the houuusssse. So what's this article about? I can't bear to read sooooo much. Can anyone provide a 2 line explanation on this one? Thanks dudes.
Thanks house. Based on that, it seems that Martindale's saying -
Eve "committed" homosexuality, and sinned.
Adam "accepted the concept"....he didn't really do anything but he agreed, uh, conceptually.
How exactly does someone agree to the "concept" of homosexuality? What's he think Eve did with Luciferanne? And what did she say? "She's CUTE, huh?" and Adam nodded, drooling? Does he actually describe how he pictures this record playing out, as if Adam and Eve were real people?
If I were going to go along with his conclusion, I would think that Adam would have had to have done the same thing as Eve, in "concept". But the problem is there's no other men around for Adam to uh, conceptually do the no-no with, or think about doing it with. Is Adam's sin that he thought "dang, I with I had a buddy with big beefy arms and a hairy neck?" .
Lucifer is, according to Martindale, a babe and one hot one at that. Eve's never seen another woman before. I guess, there's no indication in that record they've had children at that time, and if she had they'd be her kids. As I juggle the possibilities I don't see the pieces fitting together like a hand in a glove. Oh wait. Old wineskin! No problemo for Martindale, it just has to fit in his ample head.
I think another place where he's pulling pork here, to coin a phrase, is in the conclusion that all of these "earthly" and "sexual" connotations in the Hebrew words restricts the interpretation to a sexual one AND that the sin would be, perhaps by default as there's no conclusive or clear statement to support it, that Eve and Lucifer-ette had sex together.
Those words have to have earthly connotations, and could be used in sexual contexts, of course. But we also know that Hebrew words have multiple meanings, shades of meaning, and sometimes similar and opposite meanings, which he eludes to in his half-baked reference to ayin and it being a "homonym". I'm not a Hebrew language expert but if that's all he said about it, he's got cards he isn't showing, perhaps because he knows full well they're not deal-makers. I've read a few unusual interpretations about Genesis and "the fall" and his isn't even the most far out, but the real question is, why would he present this as THE meaning when it's at best a very weakly upheld theory and more accurately a hypothesis, a wild a@@-guesstimate likely cooked up in some late night poring over his personal problems. ("Stupid studid stupid me!") Maybe. That would be my wild-a@@-guesstimate.
Martindale never specified what he thought that "the act" was that Eve and the Devil in the Blue dress engaged in. Nor did he specify whether Adam's "agreement" was that it was just okay for Eve to be bi, or that Adam wanted a hairy playmate for himself.
And you don't need to be a Hebrew scholar to know that his definitions are bogus. Five minutes with a concordance will tell you that God was not looking at his creation with sexual desire when he "saw" it. Same with his crap about homonyms; you don't use the definition for one homonym to explain another. I think the nuns taught me that in fifth grade.
Father forgive me because I know I am about to sin :o-->
Perhaps in the garden before the days of President Clinton, oral sex was, well considered sex!And perhaps the teacher would not perform the act that his wife wanted. She went to a trusted friend and well, got her needs meet. So the one that would became Pres and the one that wouldn’t got booted out of the garden of corn.
Now when the devil did the nasty with Eve and was in drag, perhaps in the original it wasn’t the act but the actor that made it a sin. And when the sinner teacher would not do the nasty, to quote WC Fields, oh forget the quote, but his wife became a possible girl friend. And as a last ditch effort to keep the kingdom and all the women going without the act in the kingdom the king declared the act sin. Of course going from a ministry of clean fridge tops to it being sin would cause a major revolt among the wimmin folk!
Now for Adam to perform it for Eve wouldn’t be sin, but when he said “man I am glad that thing in Blue showed ya how, that would be sin by consent. :D-->
Whenever someone mentioned the taped segment of this,
when lcm is trying to "explain" this and is confronted with a
roomful of glazed and confused looks,
he closes all of the stuff you mentioned with the
following "summary":
"You don't see that? Well, too bad-I do! *laughs*"
In short, acknowledging that nobody but him sees it that way,
and acknowledging that THEIR opinions are meaningless in wayworld.
WW, that ....ed me off when I FIRST heard it! I just got more and more angry when I would hear TWIts use the fact that the almighty mog spoke excathedra (forgive me ex, for taking your name in vain) on this topic and if he said it, then, by golly, that's the way it is....the rest of us just weren't spiritually mature enough to see it.
Oak, I shared the same things with my ex and our branch coordinators and was quickly dismissed and shut up for having the wrong "motive of heart". I was just trying to find something wrong with what TWI was teaching and I was too stupid to come up with this stuff on my own. Nevermind the fact that I was right! Don't know why I was surprised or even still miffed about it. They always changed the subject back to my motive of heart or the fact that I could not have possibly come up with the things I did on my own.
Recommended Posts
Steve!
I just reread the title of this thread - March/April 2005 Magazine tidbits.
I dunno, it seems strangely inappropriate. Sort of like "Tasty chunks from a pile of dog vomit"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Well, I guess we've run this topic in the ground already. Not much to say about this same ole - same ole with TWI. Just proves that nothing really has changed with them despite all the claims to the contrary. Me doth think they protest too much!
Give us more money
Bring us more people to bring us money
Pay for more of our stuff
Obey everything WE say, forget God and Jesus, we'll tell you if they're right or not.
Pray for US so that we can keep taking your money and living this nice cushy lifestyle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
They really believe Eve was lesbian?
How did they ever get to YHAT? Wouldn't she have to have been Bi? Or do they say that Even didn't bear Adam children because she was gay?
If they believe stuff like that; they're not dong research, they're doing magic!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Actually, from what I hear, most *don't* believe it because they can't understand it!
But they sure teach it!
It was based on "research", or rather "revelation" that loyboy martinpuke received while sitting on the john one day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Steve! I was going to say "kibbles and bits" but that's probably too kind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
cool.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
You know Steve, I get things revealed to me on the toilet everyday. They always stink though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
houseisarockin
Oak, I have most everything should you need something in helping Howard. PT me if need.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
HCW:
My summary has been emailed to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Thanks Oaksp. Got it read it. Still think the whole concept is nuts. Eve switched teams because she saw what? A really sexy looking snake?
Then Adam said "Oohh Eveie baby, what you did was cool with me!"
God got mad & kicked 'em both out of the Garden. Then Eve switched back and became the Mother of all people. Her seed must be people who are "born gay" right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
houseisarockin
Taken from 1995 foundational class regarding Eve, should anyone not have seen it before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Thanks house for the quotes - I added a few of my comments
In 2001 I sent my analysis and comments to a member of the Board of Trustees who referred me to my Region Coordinator. TH, the Region guy, listened to what I had to say, then told me that "even if there isn't scripture to back up the teaching, it has to be true because of what we know about homosexuality".Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Thanks house, never seen dat before, laid out in all it's glaw-ry.
Sooooo...did Martindale suggest this all ended up in some kind of funky 3-way? A sexual Do-Re-Me Too?
I'd have to wonder, if Eve's sin was homosexuality and she gave it to Adam and he ate it too (don't go there!!!) then why wouldn't it mean his sin was homosexuality too? Did he cover that?
If the sin was a sexual relationship with the Devil-in-a-blue-dress-and-spikey-heels, and the original sin was homosexuality and she gave it to her husband (sounds like a cold or something)
why wouldn't that mean that his sin was homosexuality? It wouldn't be if he was sharing the love with two women.
I think Martindale might have ayin messed up too, amongst other things.
Compared to his teaching an apple sounds much easier to swallow. (don't go there!!!!)
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You left out the best part!!!!
Whenever someone mentioned the taped segment of this,
when lcm is trying to "explain" this and is confronted with a
roomful of glazed and confused looks,
he closes all of the stuff you mentioned with the
following "summary":
"You don't see that? Well, too bad-I do! *laughs*"
In short, acknowledging that nobody but him sees it that way,
and acknowledging that THEIR opinions are meaningless in wayworld.
=======
"What's the most selfish sexual act?"
Now that I stop for an instant to consider the question on the table,
I can think of at least one more "selfish" than the one he named,
but I'm not naming it because that's as far as I think we should
take this discussion in that direction.
===========
You also left out the full-colour picture!
There's this thing by da Vinci or somebody, depicting
Adam, Eve and the devil.
It's been supposed that lcm came up with this whole thing based on
the one picture.
(Or his own insecurities. Whichever.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
houseisarockin
Thank you WordWolf and Socks!
*****
A little more from same source.
Craig, do you still have time to halt the new teaching that covers this subject? If so email the fox and tell her to give it up.
You really never believed the woman would be so over whelmed to have partaken in pleasure with another woman; after all she had only known a man. Why would you assume because of Romans that it would take this to overcome her? Give it up yourself Craig.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
houseisarockin
Oak, I am sorry
:(--> that I missed speaking to you. Thank you for your excellent insight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
InternationalSkiier
Hey EVERYONE! Rock and ROLLLLLL!!! Skiier is back in the houuusssse. So what's this article about? I can't bear to read sooooo much. Can anyone provide a 2 line explanation on this one? Thanks dudes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
WElcome to the cafe Int'l Skier
It's customary to actually read the threads, but to each his own. Hmmm...doubt itLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Thanks house. Based on that, it seems that Martindale's saying -
Eve "committed" homosexuality, and sinned.
Adam "accepted the concept"....he didn't really do anything but he agreed, uh, conceptually.
How exactly does someone agree to the "concept" of homosexuality? What's he think Eve did with Luciferanne? And what did she say? "She's CUTE, huh?" and Adam nodded, drooling? Does he actually describe how he pictures this record playing out, as if Adam and Eve were real people?
If I were going to go along with his conclusion, I would think that Adam would have had to have done the same thing as Eve, in "concept". But the problem is there's no other men around for Adam to uh, conceptually do the no-no with, or think about doing it with. Is Adam's sin that he thought "dang, I with I had a buddy with big beefy arms and a hairy neck?" .
Lucifer is, according to Martindale, a babe and one hot one at that. Eve's never seen another woman before. I guess, there's no indication in that record they've had children at that time, and if she had they'd be her kids. As I juggle the possibilities I don't see the pieces fitting together like a hand in a glove. Oh wait. Old wineskin! No problemo for Martindale, it just has to fit in his ample head.
I think another place where he's pulling pork here, to coin a phrase, is in the conclusion that all of these "earthly" and "sexual" connotations in the Hebrew words restricts the interpretation to a sexual one AND that the sin would be, perhaps by default as there's no conclusive or clear statement to support it, that Eve and Lucifer-ette had sex together.
Those words have to have earthly connotations, and could be used in sexual contexts, of course. But we also know that Hebrew words have multiple meanings, shades of meaning, and sometimes similar and opposite meanings, which he eludes to in his half-baked reference to ayin and it being a "homonym". I'm not a Hebrew language expert but if that's all he said about it, he's got cards he isn't showing, perhaps because he knows full well they're not deal-makers. I've read a few unusual interpretations about Genesis and "the fall" and his isn't even the most far out, but the real question is, why would he present this as THE meaning when it's at best a very weakly upheld theory and more accurately a hypothesis, a wild a@@-guesstimate likely cooked up in some late night poring over his personal problems.
("Stupid studid stupid me!") Maybe. That would be my wild-a@@-guesstimate.
Weird. But interesting.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Socks:
Martindale never specified what he thought that "the act" was that Eve and the Devil in the Blue dress engaged in. Nor did he specify whether Adam's "agreement" was that it was just okay for Eve to be bi, or that Adam wanted a hairy playmate for himself.
And you don't need to be a Hebrew scholar to know that his definitions are bogus. Five minutes with a concordance will tell you that God was not looking at his creation with sexual desire when he "saw" it.
Same with his crap about homonyms; you don't use the definition for one homonym to explain another. I think the nuns taught me that in fifth grade.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wingnut
Father forgive me because I know I am about to sin
:o-->
Perhaps in the garden before the days of President Clinton, oral sex was, well considered sex!And perhaps the teacher would not perform the act that his wife wanted. She went to a trusted friend and well, got her needs meet. So the one that would became Pres and the one that wouldn’t got booted out of the garden of corn.
Now when the devil did the nasty with Eve and was in drag, perhaps in the original it wasn’t the act but the actor that made it a sin. And when the sinner teacher would not do the nasty, to quote WC Fields, oh forget the quote, but his wife became a possible girl friend. And as a last ditch effort to keep the kingdom and all the women going without the act in the kingdom the king declared the act sin. Of course going from a ministry of clean fridge tops to it being sin would cause a major revolt among the wimmin folk!
Now for Adam to perform it for Eve wouldn’t be sin, but when he said “man I am glad that thing in Blue showed ya how, that would be sin by consent.
:D-->
Coming in a class soon.
Now I am going to confession
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
WW, that ....ed me off when I FIRST heard it! I just got more and more angry when I would hear TWIts use the fact that the almighty mog spoke excathedra (forgive me ex, for taking your name in vain) on this topic and if he said it, then, by golly, that's the way it is....the rest of us just weren't spiritually mature enough to see it.
Oak, I shared the same things with my ex and our branch coordinators and was quickly dismissed and shut up for having the wrong "motive of heart". I was just trying to find something wrong with what TWI was teaching and I was too stupid to come up with this stuff on my own. Nevermind the fact that I was right!
Don't know why I was surprised or even still miffed about it. They always changed the subject back to my motive of heart or the fact that I could not have possibly come up with the things I did on my own.
Signed,
Belle-igerant One
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Says a lot more than you can ever imagine..
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.