Thanks, exy. That was on the "forgiveness" thread. And yes, I think the guilt card gets played by people who want to continue to perpetrate their abuse, or lessen their own guilt, by blaming others. And I appreciate that you noticed my post.
WW, I 'm one who's been saying it, too. I jus think the point fit here really well!
There were two teachings about Noah by VeePee at an Advanced Class. One in which he said Noah's nakeness was that he got castrated. He later had Walter C teach at a later Advanced class that it was Noah's wife that the son saw/sexed.
I don't remember Vee PEE being upset about it. Just "further research."
It isn't the revising of doctrine that drove me crazy it was the lack of acknowledgement that that is what they were doing that baffled me.
We've learned so much in the last few generations, Archeology, Anthropology, THe dead sea scrolls, old manuscripts to just name a few of the tools at our disposal. SOme of it has given us new insights and a clearer understanding.
But in every other church I've attended-- New concepts are introduced as just that--new concepts-- with comparision of the old and new done right in front of everyone with plenty of discussion to go around.
Which is as it should be
But TWI kept us in a vacuum where changes appeared like mushrooms after a rainy night.
BUt thinking on that-- that is probably the way it should have been in TWI --after all Keeping us in the Dark and Feeding us MAnure was the primary goal after collecting money
quote: Remember that stupid "Believer's Family Class"? Remember Martinpuke teaching that it is OK for single people to get laid once they get "of age" and aren't married?
WN, our bc once said that you don't buy the car without test driving it first! Like it was mandatory to have sex before you got married to make sure you were compatible.
Apparently their new class says not to have sex before marriage at all and not to date like other people. Just go out on dates. (in groups)
new class? If you are referring to the one LCM taught, what he said was that young people shoudn't have sex before marriage without their parents permission (not suprising seen as how he had a teenaged daughter).
However, he also taught that older single men had needs which had to be met.
Abigail, there's a new family class taught by the Coulters and they say in this new class that any sex outside the marriage is wrong. They also spend a great deal of time talking about how bestiality is wrong and how important it is to marry within the household.
They don't say they are changing doctrine or that they were wrong. They don't even mention the other doctrine - if we dont talk about it, it never happened - they just change it and expect the kool-aid drinkers to continue lapping it up.
Beastiliaty is wrong??? Sounds like another great present truth unearthed by years of research for the prevailing household! Sounds like Coulter may be in the running for the next MOG (kind of). The innies should be sooooo thankful..
Ha ha ha.. The no pet policy was probably for bracing the masses (under 4000) for what was to come.. now they must get rid of their old wine skins.. sorry, old animal skins.
After many years of silence about the subject, R*** Mag***** will stand in front of the press and announce, "from peas to soups to animals, we never informed our people that beastiality is OK, though we never failed to inform them little otherwise as well."
"and, anyone who has listened to any of our teachings must realize by now that we have the greatest knowledge about peas, soup and animal crakers than that which has been known since the first century."
Well, at least one good thing has come from all of this, and we should all be thankful- all of the animals in Way World can sleep a little easier tonight.
Tumbleweed is correct about the Noah and Ham incident. Wierwille taught that the sin of Ham was that Ham castrated Noah. Wierwille got that translation of that story from Ernest L. Martin's book, "101 Secrets That Christians Do Not Know", Chapter 57 (or the 57th Question), on page 87, entitled "The Castration of Ham".
Not a good interpretation but apparently Wierwille believed it. The rest of the book looks okay, though.
Sometime early in the 1980s, John Schoenheit wrote in a Way Magazine an article called, The "Sin of Ham", in which he states that the sin was not castration but that Ham raped his own mother, giving way to the birth of Canaan. Schoenheit gives great scripture to back this up. I believe the article came out after Wierwille died and was before the Advanced Class of 1986.
When I attended the Advanced Class in 1986, we saw the video of Wierwille bringing up the Sin of Ham as castration. At lunch and after lunch, I mentioned that the Way Magazine had since gone away from that and said it was Ham raping his mother.
Many fellow classmates, obviously Wierwille worshippers, panicked and went to the head of the class at that time, Michael Fort (this happened at Emporia) to turn me in pretty much, and question whether I was telling the truth or disrupting the class.
Fort advised them the story was true and I was not captured or handcuffed but rather Fort came out and tried to calm those down that further research had been done on the subject and that it sometimes is necessary to move on and correct any past errors and that we should be grateful to belong to a ministry that does that.
Actually, that summer, Michael Fort was a class act. I don't know him personally and maybe others do not agree, but he did pretty good.
So they've discovered beastiality is wrong?! Wow, wait until the unbelievers hear this.
Here's a tip for both of the Corps weenies allowed to look at the net. Find an article on beastiality and print it. Take it to the next advanced class as proof that the the devvvvil spirit world is copying the research done by the one true household. You'll be a hero.
I'm just waiting on the next decree that any sex at all is bad. If no one has any sex at all, then there will be no problems in TWItville and all the lawsuits will just go away.
No, they'll just revise the "Biblical" definition of sex.
Not that anyone here would EVER want to tweak TWI but... one could ask about the first usage still being a valid Biblical research principle. They will, of course, say yes. Then ask about the first use of sexual terms in the Bible. If you believe Loyboy's class it was a lesbian affair between Eve and the Devil.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
4
3
6
10
Popular Days
Nov 19
12
Nov 8
12
Nov 9
11
Nov 22
6
Top Posters In This Topic
Belle 4 posts
shazdancer 3 posts
JustThinking 6 posts
Ham 10 posts
Popular Days
Nov 19 2004
12 posts
Nov 8 2004
12 posts
Nov 9 2004
11 posts
Nov 22 2004
6 posts
shazdancer
Thanks, exy. That was on the "forgiveness" thread. And yes, I think the guilt card gets played by people who want to continue to perpetrate their abuse, or lessen their own guilt, by blaming others. And I appreciate that you noticed my post.
WW, I 'm one who's been saying it, too. I jus think the point fit here really well!
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Damn shaz....thats brilliant, I am sorry that I missed it before, sure glad that it got repeated here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tumbleweed Kid
There were two teachings about Noah by VeePee at an Advanced Class. One in which he said Noah's nakeness was that he got castrated. He later had Walter C teach at a later Advanced class that it was Noah's wife that the son saw/sexed.
I don't remember Vee PEE being upset about it. Just "further research."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
It isn't the revising of doctrine that drove me crazy it was the lack of acknowledgement that that is what they were doing that baffled me.
We've learned so much in the last few generations, Archeology, Anthropology, THe dead sea scrolls, old manuscripts to just name a few of the tools at our disposal. SOme of it has given us new insights and a clearer understanding.
But in every other church I've attended-- New concepts are introduced as just that--new concepts-- with comparision of the old and new done right in front of everyone with plenty of discussion to go around.
Which is as it should be
But TWI kept us in a vacuum where changes appeared like mushrooms after a rainy night.
BUt thinking on that-- that is probably the way it should have been in TWI --after all Keeping us in the Dark and Feeding us MAnure was the primary goal after collecting money
Link to comment
Share on other sites
learning
hrm did not "1984" teach us that too?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
learning
Apparently their new class says not to have sex before marriage at all and not to date like other people. Just go out on dates. (in groups)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
new class? If you are referring to the one LCM taught, what he said was that young people shoudn't have sex before marriage without their parents permission (not suprising seen as how he had a teenaged daughter).
However, he also taught that older single men had needs which had to be met.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Abigail, there's a new family class taught by the Coulters and they say in this new class that any sex outside the marriage is wrong. They also spend a great deal of time talking about how bestiality is wrong and how important it is to marry within the household.
They don't say they are changing doctrine or that they were wrong. They don't even mention the other doctrine - if we dont talk about it, it never happened - they just change it and expect the kool-aid drinkers to continue lapping it up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Beastiliaty is wrong??? Sounds like another great present truth unearthed by years of research for the prevailing household! Sounds like Coulter may be in the running for the next MOG (kind of). The innies should be sooooo thankful..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Why would they even feel the need to spend ANY time on bestiality?
Oh, maybe it's because of docvic's(praise be his name) old home movies that he used to show to the advanced piffle class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I can almost hear the feverish discussion going up and down the Ole Vay Tree: "What should we tell them to do with all of those animals now?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
oh now i get the "no pets" policy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Ha ha ha.. The no pet policy was probably for bracing the masses (under 4000) for what was to come.. now they must get rid of their old wine skins.. sorry, old animal skins.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Almost the same thing, anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Excathedra, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
After many years of silence about the subject, R*** Mag***** will stand in front of the press and announce, "from peas to soups to animals, we never informed our people that beastiality is OK, though we never failed to inform them little otherwise as well."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
"and, anyone who has listened to any of our teachings must realize by now that we have the greatest knowledge about peas, soup and animal crakers than that which has been known since the first century."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Well, at least one good thing has come from all of this, and we should all be thankful- all of the animals in Way World can sleep a little easier tonight.
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Tumbleweed is correct about the Noah and Ham incident. Wierwille taught that the sin of Ham was that Ham castrated Noah. Wierwille got that translation of that story from Ernest L. Martin's book, "101 Secrets That Christians Do Not Know", Chapter 57 (or the 57th Question), on page 87, entitled "The Castration of Ham".
Not a good interpretation but apparently Wierwille believed it. The rest of the book looks okay, though.
Sometime early in the 1980s, John Schoenheit wrote in a Way Magazine an article called, The "Sin of Ham", in which he states that the sin was not castration but that Ham raped his own mother, giving way to the birth of Canaan. Schoenheit gives great scripture to back this up. I believe the article came out after Wierwille died and was before the Advanced Class of 1986.
When I attended the Advanced Class in 1986, we saw the video of Wierwille bringing up the Sin of Ham as castration. At lunch and after lunch, I mentioned that the Way Magazine had since gone away from that and said it was Ham raping his mother.
Many fellow classmates, obviously Wierwille worshippers, panicked and went to the head of the class at that time, Michael Fort (this happened at Emporia) to turn me in pretty much, and question whether I was telling the truth or disrupting the class.
Fort advised them the story was true and I was not captured or handcuffed but rather Fort came out and tried to calm those down that further research had been done on the subject and that it sometimes is necessary to move on and correct any past errors and that we should be grateful to belong to a ministry that does that.
Actually, that summer, Michael Fort was a class act. I don't know him personally and maybe others do not agree, but he did pretty good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
So they've discovered beastiality is wrong?! Wow, wait until the unbelievers hear this.
Here's a tip for both of the Corps weenies allowed to look at the net. Find an article on beastiality and print it. Take it to the next advanced class as proof that the the devvvvil spirit world is copying the research done by the one true household. You'll be a hero.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I wonder what the next phenomenal revelation will be.. "We have Biblical evidence.... that the sun will rise and set once a day."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I'm just waiting on the next decree that any sex at all is bad. If no one has any sex at all, then there will be no problems in TWItville and all the lawsuits will just go away.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Belle,
No, they'll just revise the "Biblical" definition of sex.
Not that anyone here would EVER want to tweak TWI but... one could ask about the first usage still being a valid Biblical research principle. They will, of course, say yes. Then ask about the first use of sexual terms in the Bible. If you believe Loyboy's class it was a lesbian affair between Eve and the Devil.
So that sets the pattern for the rest? :-)
JT
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.