Some of this reminds me of a counselor who talked to me about me and my first husband. She was of the opinion that it "takes two to screw" up a marriage. So what did you both do, she wanted to know.
Well... there were times when I lost my temper and shouted.
And... there were times when he got drunk, spent all the money, screwed around, and hit me.
Yeah, I guess we both did things wrong, shame on me.
quote:maybe I'm dense, but I don't see where it says that woman was coerced into having sex with the leaders of the time, much less the pharisees. This does not appear to be the same type of situation at all.
Two things...
First, if they could drag her out of bed early in the morning, knowing where she was and with whom, then it probably wasn't the first time.
Second, when Jesus confronted the accusers in v. 7 he meant "he that is without the same sin among you let him cast the first stone". All those accusers had sex with that woman. According to Lev 20:10 the man who commits adultery gets stoned too. So those accusers had to walk away or the woman could have ratted them out.
She, like many women who entered the corps, was probably thrilled to be working in the temple around those "men of God". One thing led to another and she was a sex slave for them. If she tells her family, they would believe the men, not her, and she would have been disgraced. Sound familiar?
I will say that Jesus saw what was going on and seeing what they did to that woman may have fueled the intensity with which he spoke to those Pharisees later in the chapter.
quote:First, if they could drag her out of bed early in the morning, knowing where she was and with whom, then it probably wasn't the first time.
Probably? Translation: "maybe." It could have been many times for the guy, just a different girl that time. Probably. Maybe. My baseless speculation is just as good as yours. And just as worthless.
quote:Second, when Jesus confronted the accusers in v. 7 he meant "he that is without the same sin among you let him cast the first stone".
Adding a word to the Word, are we? Makes the rest of the interpretation convenient. If only that was what the Lord said! But it wasn't.
quote:All those accusers had sex with that woman.
You know, last time you had the decency to use the word probably. Or maybe. Now you're just stating baseless speculation as fact. Doesn't change the fact that it's baseless speculation: If only that was what the Scripture said! But it wasn't.
quote:According to Lev 20:10 the man who commits adultery gets stoned too.
Good point.
quote:So those accusers had to walk away or the woman could have ratted them out.
Do you know what would have happened if Nathan had gone to David with any other story? David would have chopped his head off! Probably. Maybe. Baseless speculation, stated as fact. Doesn't change the fact that it's baseless speculation. But it sure sounded a heck of a lot better when it was just stated as fact. Sounds real authoritative, doesn't it?
quote:She, like many women who entered the corps, was probably thrilled to be working in the temple around those "men of God". One thing led to another and she was a sex slave for them. If she tells her family, they would believe the men, not her, and she would have been disgraced. Sound familiar?
I wasn't there, so I have no comment. I'll leave that to others. I am qualified to say the following, however:
It does not make one whit of difference if they were willing or unwilling, abused or prostitutes. The point is it was FLAT OUT WRONG for "men of God" to do these things. You can distract and make it about the women. But you're still distracting. Or missing the point. Or both.
You dissect my post with that lying spin and call ME obsessed?
quote:The point is it was FLAT OUT WRONG for "men of God" to do these things.
The point is "sadistic leadership" per UH's opinion. Each point invites a counterpoint. That's all OM and I have done. You quit obsessing and distracting.
wanna talk about ME wanna talk about I wanna talk about number one oh my me my...
John,
Convenient calling my post "lying spin." Real authoritative. Takes the focus off the baseless speculation of your post and puts it instead on....
meeeeeeeeeeeee. wanna talk about mee-eee-eeeeee.
Hey, why don't you quote the rest of my paragraph, John?
quote:It doesn't matter how much blame falls on the victims. Why are you so obsessed with that when the problem being identified is that people took sexual advantage of those they were supposed to be caring for, and they were doing it in God's name, and they didn't even have the decency to teach that it was wrong.
That's not counterpoint, John. It's spin. It's deflecting from the point. Christian leaders ought not be doing those things. No matter how much you want to malign these women, it doesn't matter. The point is that Christian leaders ought not be doing those things, regardless of whether the women were forced at gunpoint or coming onto them like Times Square hookers during Fleet Week.
quote:She, like many women who entered the corps, was probably thrilled to be working in the temple around those "men of God". One thing led to another and she was a sex slave for them.
I don't see how what I wrote was either lying OR spin.
Nor do I see how calling my paragraph "stupid" substantively addresses the point I made, which is that you are so obsessed with the sins of the women that you, like the Pharisees who dragged the woman to Jesus' feet, forgot to include the men. Maybe "obsessed" is the wrong word. Pick another one. Insistent. Stubborn. Dedicated. I don't know, YOU pick the word. Whatever. I'm not wedded to that word.
And while you're sleeping tonight, think on this truth --
quote: It does not make one whit of difference if they were willing or unwilling, abused or prostitutes. The point is it was FLAT OUT WRONG for "men of God" to do these things.
Speaking of doctrine... When a "clergyman" teaches, in private, that having sex with him is God's will...it's not that surprising that he would also teach publicly, that abortion is "ok" with God.
I know of intelligent women who were taught that it was their godly duty to have sex with the mog. When the woman believes the doctrine that is taught her, the rest is easy. Even if the woman "willingly" complies, she is still a victim...even as Jim Jones victimized his followers with koolaid, teaching them it was God's will.
Compare the motives...the woman is sincerly trying to do God's will as it was taught her, the mog is lying to the woman in order to get into her pants. The woman is giving of herself in order to please God (or so SHE believes), the twi leader is taking for himself in order to please himself...AND lying in God's name in the process! How can any reasonable person possibly include the woman in culpability?
It seems to me that the twi apologists here, can rationalize about anything as long as they end up paying homage to what they perceive as their valuable experience with that little cornfield cult.
"It does not make one whit of difference if they were willing or unwilling, abused or prostitutes. The point is it was FLAT OUT WRONG for "men of God" to do these things"
Thank you Raf and dmiller. Raf, I like my coffee leaded.
No wonder why a woman conceals sexual abuse. It would appear there are some who believe it was willingly given by ALL whom 'knew' these two men's beds. Why then would a woman share her account? I suspect if they were handed intimate details only known to one having been there they would still somehow believe it to be the woman's will. And when the day is over and all is said and done the MOG that came and conquered will have to account, not to me although they will beg it be that way, but to the real searcher of hearts and deeds.
quote:I know of intelligent women who were taught that it was their godly duty to have sex with the mog. When the woman believes the doctrine that is taught her, the rest is easy. Even if the woman "willingly" complies, she is still a victim...even as Jim Jones victimized his followers with koolaid, teaching them it was God's will.
Compare the motives...the woman is sincerly trying to do God's will as it was taught her, the mog is lying to the woman in order to get into her pants. The woman is giving of herself in order to please God (or so SHE believes), the twi leader is taking for himself in order to please himself...AND lying in God's name in the process! How can any reasonable person possibly include the woman in culpability?
Because you're suggesting that the woman is either too stupid or coerced to know that adultery is wrong. Sorry, I don't buy your theory. Women of twi knew adultery was wrong, which was why many of them said:
NO
Again, my belief is that adults are responsible for their actions, unless they are mentally retarded, children, or narcotized.
Of course, but the premise of this entire thread is that the mogs of twi had "absolute authority" over everything. They didn't. When they screwed up, they screwed up. So did some of the women.
Uncle Hairy said:
quote:... In no way is the woman to share in that blame. How dare anyone try to depict the woman as anything other than a victim. ...
I totally, vehemenently disagree. People are responsible for their actions.
When two people commit adultery, TWO people are WRONG. That's all folks.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
27
37
51
28
Popular Days
May 14
43
May 19
40
May 17
39
May 13
38
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 27 posts
Raf 37 posts
oldiesman 51 posts
Tom Strange 28 posts
Popular Days
May 14 2004
43 posts
May 19 2004
40 posts
May 17 2004
39 posts
May 13 2004
38 posts
excathedra
i do
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Some of this reminds me of a counselor who talked to me about me and my first husband. She was of the opinion that it "takes two to screw" up a marriage. So what did you both do, she wanted to know.
Well... there were times when I lost my temper and shouted.
And... there were times when he got drunk, spent all the money, screwed around, and hit me.
Yeah, I guess we both did things wrong, shame on me.
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
yeah shame on you shaz
love,
from a retard
Link to comment
Share on other sites
There's no place like home...
Thank you for all of your kind welcomes!
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Boy ain't that the truth!
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
NPLH --
:)--> 
:)--> 
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Quote
------------------------
Each opinion is a religion unto itself
------------------------
A list i'm on uses UPG (unverified personal gnosis.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Rascal:
quote:have I got it right oldies n John??
No, you don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Insurgent:
quote:maybe I'm dense, but I don't see where it says that woman was coerced into having sex with the leaders of the time, much less the pharisees. This does not appear to be the same type of situation at all.
Two things...
First, if they could drag her out of bed early in the morning, knowing where she was and with whom, then it probably wasn't the first time.
Second, when Jesus confronted the accusers in v. 7 he meant "he that is without the same sin among you let him cast the first stone". All those accusers had sex with that woman. According to Lev 20:10 the man who commits adultery gets stoned too. So those accusers had to walk away or the woman could have ratted them out.
She, like many women who entered the corps, was probably thrilled to be working in the temple around those "men of God". One thing led to another and she was a sex slave for them. If she tells her family, they would believe the men, not her, and she would have been disgraced. Sound familiar?
I will say that Jesus saw what was going on and seeing what they did to that woman may have fueled the intensity with which he spoke to those Pharisees later in the chapter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Hey John,
What's the Greek word for "same" in that verse?
Just curious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Probably? Translation: "maybe." It could have been many times for the guy, just a different girl that time. Probably. Maybe. My baseless speculation is just as good as yours. And just as worthless.
Adding a word to the Word, are we? Makes the rest of the interpretation convenient. If only that was what the Lord said! But it wasn't.
You know, last time you had the decency to use the word probably. Or maybe. Now you're just stating baseless speculation as fact. Doesn't change the fact that it's baseless speculation: If only that was what the Scripture said! But it wasn't.
Good point.
Do you know what would have happened if Nathan had gone to David with any other story? David would have chopped his head off! Probably. Maybe. Baseless speculation, stated as fact. Doesn't change the fact that it's baseless speculation. But it sure sounded a heck of a lot better when it was just stated as fact. Sounds real authoritative, doesn't it?
I wasn't there, so I have no comment. I'll leave that to others. I am qualified to say the following, however:
It does not make one whit of difference if they were willing or unwilling, abused or prostitutes. The point is it was FLAT OUT WRONG for "men of God" to do these things. You can distract and make it about the women. But you're still distracting. Or missing the point. Or both.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Raf:
quote:Why are you so obsessed....
You dissect my post with that lying spin and call ME obsessed?
quote:The point is it was FLAT OUT WRONG for "men of God" to do these things.
The point is "sadistic leadership" per UH's opinion. Each point invites a counterpoint. That's all OM and I have done. You quit obsessing and distracting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
wanna talk about ME wanna talk about I wanna talk about number one oh my me my...
John,
Convenient calling my post "lying spin." Real authoritative. Takes the focus off the baseless speculation of your post and puts it instead on....
meeeeeeeeeeeee. wanna talk about mee-eee-eeeeee.
Hey, why don't you quote the rest of my paragraph, John?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That's not counterpoint, John. It's spin. It's deflecting from the point. Christian leaders ought not be doing those things. No matter how much you want to malign these women, it doesn't matter. The point is that Christian leaders ought not be doing those things, regardless of whether the women were forced at gunpoint or coming onto them like Times Square hookers during Fleet Week.
Oh, and your views on John 8? TWI spin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Because I don't need to quote your stupid paragraph to make my point.
quote:No matter how much you want to malign these women...
More lying spin. I'm going to bed. Good night.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't see how what I wrote was either lying OR spin.
Nor do I see how calling my paragraph "stupid" substantively addresses the point I made, which is that you are so obsessed with the sins of the women that you, like the Pharisees who dragged the woman to Jesus' feet, forgot to include the men. Maybe "obsessed" is the wrong word. Pick another one. Insistent. Stubborn. Dedicated. I don't know, YOU pick the word. Whatever. I'm not wedded to that word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Good night.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
And while you're sleeping tonight, think on this truth --
Sweet dreams.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Speaking of doctrine... When a "clergyman" teaches, in private, that having sex with him is God's will...it's not that surprising that he would also teach publicly, that abortion is "ok" with God.
I know of intelligent women who were taught that it was their godly duty to have sex with the mog. When the woman believes the doctrine that is taught her, the rest is easy. Even if the woman "willingly" complies, she is still a victim...even as Jim Jones victimized his followers with koolaid, teaching them it was God's will.
Compare the motives...the woman is sincerly trying to do God's will as it was taught her, the mog is lying to the woman in order to get into her pants. The woman is giving of herself in order to please God (or so SHE believes), the twi leader is taking for himself in order to please himself...AND lying in God's name in the process! How can any reasonable person possibly include the woman in culpability?
It seems to me that the twi apologists here, can rationalize about anything as long as they end up paying homage to what they perceive as their valuable experience with that little cornfield cult.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
I'll add to the chorus:
"It does not make one whit of difference if they were willing or unwilling, abused or prostitutes. The point is it was FLAT OUT WRONG for "men of God" to do these things"
Amen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
houseisarockin
Thank you Raf and dmiller. Raf, I like my coffee leaded.
No wonder why a woman conceals sexual abuse. It would appear there are some who believe it was willingly given by ALL whom 'knew' these two men's beds. Why then would a woman share her account? I suspect if they were handed intimate details only known to one having been there they would still somehow believe it to be the woman's will. And when the day is over and all is said and done the MOG that came and conquered will have to account, not to me although they will beg it be that way, but to the real searcher of hearts and deeds.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
NO
Again, my belief is that adults are responsible for their actions, unless they are mentally retarded, children, or narcotized.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Did the male leaders who participated in the adultery know it was wrong?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Of course, but the premise of this entire thread is that the mogs of twi had "absolute authority" over everything. They didn't. When they screwed up, they screwed up. So did some of the women.
Uncle Hairy said:
I totally, vehemenently disagree. People are responsible for their actions.When two people commit adultery, TWO people are WRONG. That's all folks.
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.