|
|
 |
|
Getting Out : Seeking Justice
What it is | from anovagrrl - Friday, February 06, 2004
accessed 2921 times The movement to expose FCF as a Family funding source is about making anyone associated with TF face the fact that victims exist and that their pain is real and will not go away without proper redress. The argument is frequently made that innocent Family members who do good work in the field will be hurt by anything that hurts FCF, their funding agent. The logic, as I hear it, goes like this: So-and-so does such good work for the Lord that s/he shouldn't be held responsible for maintaining a financial association with individuals who are guilty of crimes against humanity.
This rationalization is another version of the social pathology in Family leadership and Family relationships. Any “mistakes” that Family members and leadership might have made in the past are old business that have nothing to do with the present. Leadership acknowledges that mistakes were made. (Notice the passive voice: Who is actually responsible for those “mistakes”? Beats me.)
I have yet to read anything published by TF where leadership admits they are in any way responsible for the terrible pain caused by some “mistakes” that “misguided” individuals made along the way in the distant past. When the victims’ pain is even acknowledged at all, it is minimized, dismissed, rationalized, and shifted back onto the victim.
Offenders who wish to reconcile with their victims should be expected to face the shame associated with their victimization of another human being. Anything less is based on the narcissistic belief that the offender is “special.” This is a core pathology in Berg’s teachings: Anyone who serves God in TF is "special" and "elect." The fundamental rules of reconciliation and social responsibility don't apply to God’s elect because of the "higher law" to which God's servants adhere.
This rationalization also is based on the premise that, overall, the good deeds of a particular individual outweigh the bad s/he does. That may indeed be true, but the overall good a person does will not change the fact that some people may have been seriously hurt as a consequence of that good person’s deliberate actions and self-serving behavior.
The premise that the good outweighs the bad and therefore excuses whatever bad might have occurred overlooks the possibility that a good person's behavior can be quite despicable, even criminal, in certain circumstances. A thousand good deeds will not change the reality of a victim’s pain.
I believe that when people get hurt by our actions, and our behavior can be easily interpreted as venal and base, a responsible person will acknowledge that fact without defending and making excuses. In my book, this is one of the basic rules of reconciliation and human decency. It applies to everyone. There are no exemptions for the elect.
I support the movement to expose FCF as a funding source for Family missionaries because I am committed to keeping the focus on what the Family’s victims say they want and need. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from cheeks
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 12:01
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I really think we circle this subject too many times. In my opinion as I have said before, if you saw the abuse and you did nothing about it then you are guilty as well. I don't care what the circomstances were. Silence is criminal. Many of the people who perpetrated these crimes were leaders and if they didn't do it they sure as hell knew about it. I don't believe innocent people should pay for the crimes of the guilty. Let us go after the top dogs. And leave the puppies alone.
(reply to this comment)
| from cheeks
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 12:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
I really think we circle this subject too many times. In my opinion as I have said before, if you saw the abuse and you did nothing about it then you are guilty as well. I don't care what the circomstances were. Silence is criminal. Many of the people who perpetrated these crimes were leaders and if they didn't do it they sure as hell knew about it. I don't believe innocent people should pay for the crimes of the guilty. Let us go after the top dogs. And leave the puppies alone.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Wolf
Monday, February 09, 2004 - 09:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, the individuals who are guilty should be made the face the consequences. INDIVIDUALS.
(reply to this comment)
|  From exister
Monday, February 09, 2004, 18:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
an·ti·no·mi·an·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-nm--nzm)
n.
- Theology. The doctrine or belief that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to any law, whether scriptural, civil, or moral, and that salvation is attained solely through faith and the gift of divine grace.
- The belief that moral laws are relative in meaning and application as opposed to fixed or universal.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From farmer
Wednesday, February 11, 2004, 04:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Not bad you have a new word in your vocabulary, but pls. doublecheck (multicheck) the meaning of it.It's obvious to Christians, that the meaning given is a contradiction in itself, for reasons stated below, so the editors couldn't have
possibly real Christians in mind...So what did you learn from that word?...a word without proper meaning is an empty shell.(reply to this comment) |
| | From farmer
Tuesday, February 10, 2004, 19:51
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Please exister, do try & do me the favour of not trusting every book you get into your hands (one compliment,I admire your zeal in the cause)...was it an expansive dictionary ??? For one thing nomos is the law...hence also the norm... but the editors could have "sensed", that they published plain rubbish, since Romans 13 states clearly the opposite & that's not the only reference, but the most obvious (Did you forget???)...the most common reason - at least I know of - for what antinomianism is referred to is when dealing with the mosaic law...but even in that tricky realm you wouldn't expect a Christian being against forbidding to murder or to
lie...it's more about whether the day of rest is Sabbath (sabato/Italian) or Sunday, whether you can shave your beard off or not or what food you eat...whether you are obliged to keep the OT-norm in those regards...
unless the editors have fringe groups in the "grey zone" of Christianity in mind, who don't "give a damn" about legal matters of a country they're living in.Please name me a few, so I could have an idea, what you're talking about...of course minus TF..granted, there are some who resort to shooting doctors who practice abortion etc....but then it states clearly above in the definition, that they're supposed to be Christians,& I conclude not only carrying that label!!!?
(So shooting a doctor & being a Christian...hmm??)
P.S. In case you don't have the answers, you might want to
inform yourself at the editors of the above "rubbish"...I'd
really be interested, what caused them to think that way...no kidding!!!(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Wednesday, February 11, 2004, 11:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
I would expect no less than the above, incoherent, logically suspect ramblings from an original member. After the damage done to your mind by drugs before joining in '76 you no doublt lost most of your capacity for logic as the drivel of Moses David seeped into your neurons. Following your departure your vehement denial regarding your complicity in crimes against children probably shut down further portions of your mind. Given the pitiable condition of your brain the above spewings are a valiant effort at prose. Good job little buddy!(reply to this comment) |
| | From farmer
Thursday, February 12, 2004, 01:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
I expected a little more, in a good sense.Are you incapable to give a better answer, just too busy or plain "insulted" someone
didn't "buy" your posting...if I told you, that quite a few research papers, the stats that is, got tempered with, if you knew that, would you trust every research paper??? By the same token, if
you get a dictionary in your hand (may be a cheap one???)& the
definition is contradictory in itself, then I wouldn't follow that
definition. By the way before I joined, I studied a few semesters of maths at the university...I smoked just 2 joints &
didn't like it & was never drunk...so you're "listening to the wrong spirits" ; ) I am joking, can you take that???...I guess I am doing alright, as far as logic is concerned.I just wanted to show you, that you use "information" to suit your needs...so the desire (to slander christians) was the mother of the thought...Since I did study a bit of Old Greek, I don't think I have to give in to any weird explanation...I like to assume you were just too busy to look into the subject.But thanks for the reference, I'll
inform you, when I know better...best...I don't mind to be proven wrong, so don't take it personal...it's the thought I didn't like & thoughts are often exchangeable.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From farmer
Tuesday, February 17, 2004, 13:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
In the weekly magazine Spiegel, 16.10.1978, it was reported, that the psychologist Cyril Burt prepped up his stats, to establish in what he believed: Kids of workers weren't able to achieve as much as those of academics, Irish being inferior to English and men learning easier than woman...it was reported, that his work influenced the education-laws of 1944.
Well, either Spiegel reported wrong or right.I am already at unease, as far as trusting news are concerned...but if they reported right, it means, that's an example, where some scientists moral integrity was with fault...
I further read, that it has been widespread in the research-community, to be quite lax in the gathering of data
to support the stats they present, if I remember right, it concerns the chemical, medical research-community...the problem behind it was, that many young researchers need to
have so & so many publications in print, before they get a notch/step higher in their career or to get some needed funds for research, so it was found, that some work could be called faulty...I am not sure, where the ref. for that article is.
I think, you might be aware of it yourself.
With all that I wanted to say, that it serves to be critical
while reading...no matter who published it (& of course, quite a few things are beyond simple minds to validate .Yes, I learned the basics about Mendel's laws...learned in highschool about the normal distribution of Gauss...but
although that was not my interest later, I wonder, whether in any case somebody very versed in that field could find out a
forgery, just by the laws of stats???)
By the way, do you know, what happened with that cold fusion experiment?I think other researchers wanted to have the details of that experiment & if I remember right, they were
reluctant to give it???I think it takes time to verify a certain assumption or thesis...& in the meantime it could pay to be sceptical.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From farmer
Monday, February 16, 2004, 06:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
You just stated, what you're convinced of, never really rude,
I guess...I wanted to reply sooner, but "felt bound" & obliged
to make priorities, for lack of time... it was not so clear,
how I meant it.I'll answer with at least one example (out of real life), to make it clearer...(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Thursday, February 12, 2004, 17:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just a couple of things, hippie:
1) Seems exister's dictionary *was* rather expansive. (http://www.onelook.com/?loc=pub&w=antinomianism) The definitions provided by exister are pretty damn well represented throughout the various dictionaries that one can search online. (onelook is great for expansiveness (not to be confused with something pricey).).
2) Hey, while you're on this semantic goof-off, grab a slang dictionary and look up "greek" sometime. Just remember, you're only gay if you're getting it. :)
3)You didn't join The Family under the influence of drugs? I ask you: what sort of simpleton joins a cult while sober? I could understand if you were one sheet to the wind and you met people who seemed to glow, but clean and sober?? WTF? At least my parents had acid (etc) to blame.
4) I have a rule. It's a good rule: avoid persecuting Christians, it makes them imagine they are right, particularly when they are not.
5) Learn from the errors of others on this site: do not attempt to "prove" anything by what the Bible says. Biblical "logic" is weak at best, and The Bible is not a common standard of reference when speaking to non-christians. As an Atheist, I really could give a tinker's damn what Romans says or what any other biblical chapter-and-verse you care to quote says. Your "witnessing" is NOT welcome, why don't you go someplace "sheepy" already. Or better yet, go rejoin a cult that cares.
Later hippie.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From farmer
Friday, February 13, 2004, 06:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hi roughie, it's alright you call me hippie, I was waiting in vain for something like that 30 years ago & now fulfilled by a total stranger.Can you read minds?A bit late though...
But a sincere thankyou for your googlesearch & the link,... Existers dictionary is on position three, I assume...I read all the others, you too?My favourites are 6, 12, 16, 19...they're bit lengthier, aren't they? At least Webster's def. is fair enough to call it either doctrine or belief...there are plenty of weird doctrines around & false believes.
Well, the other articles call things by name, that in the eyes of mainstream Chr. that was/is a heresy...So how Webster can associate that with a Christian, who is not supposed to adhere to heresies, I don't know...if you said believer, alright, he
just happens to get things mighty mixed up.I still have to
get Websters claim validated, that Antinomianists thought of
being able to break any law...a n y ...even civil..the other,
my favourite ones didn't stress that one & too bad Webster
doesn't give any reference & a googlesearch over 20 pages didn't reveal anything of the like...so far it has more confirmed my assumption, that the quarrel was with having to
abide by OT-morals & laws...well, if you permit the connection of many civil laws to biblical ones, yes but Webster stresses any...to be honest, that's bothering!!!
Reg. 2) I got your point without using a slang dictionary...
what you apparently don't know is, that knowledge is international & ah yeah, Greece belongs to Europe, that is closer to me than to you, get it?So I got it without being a
homo...strange, one down as far as your guessing ability is concerned.
Reg. 3) If your parents joined while being under drugs, why didn't they leave immediately after they got down from their trip??It's not a good excuse, as much as I don't like it that
criminals get less charged when they are under drugs/alcohol.
Fair??
Reg.4) Why don't you do Chr. simply a favour by telling them
off, so they learn...that persecution-talk here is boring.If
I am wrong, I can take a rebuke...I was't 100% fair to exister, in the sense, that the dictionary he prefers at least mentions, that it's about a doctrine...well, it's a damn false one & the other ones are far more explicit about it.Sorry, exister!!!I still assume you preferred that one, cause it's an insinuation, more or less, that also real believers could adhere to such false believe??!Since you're
apparently smarter than me, why don't you prove the missing,
that the antinomianistic believers (Christians??) were willing to ignore, break any civil law.That proof is missing!
Reg.5)Good advice as long as the subject doesn't touch matters pertaining reasoning & definitions stemming directly from the Bible.My witnessing is not welcome?I can't tell you or others, that I find it dangerous to assume, a Christian
could have the potential to break any law?I'd say in that case something is very wrong with that "Christian"...I wouldn't dare talk like that about athiests, many of my relatives are at least agnostics...so spare me with that lame
defense, since it's you, who has lost about all respect for
Christians & I was simply defending people outside of TF, mind you...might be someone in your neighborhood...What has
sheepy to do with the process of learning from others?
Take an advice I heard from someone: wounded people go on to
wound others...how wounded are you??But thanks for the time
you took & yes, I apologize for being too stupid, too simple
to not see the truth sooner, having remained too long in that cult.But what do you know about the learning process of human
beings?You give me the impression: too little & that's why
you don't have a speck of grace for those who aren't as smart
as you are...Let's see how you react, when your kids would ask you for forgiveness for something stupid they did.You'll
be harsh, won't you???No, you wouldn't!!!!!(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Friday, February 13, 2004, 18:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh, you're welcome! I'll call you a hippie anyday. Too bad you had to wait all this time. Think of what you missed! :)
For starters, maybe you'd like to define the difference (in your opinion) between doctrine and belief as it pertains to Christianity. The relative truth or falsehood of a Christian belief is basically moot, as it's all conjecture anyway. The fact that this "false" doctrine prevails (in my opinion) is caused by the protestant doctrine of salvation that isn't based on how you live your life. All Sins Forgiven, 24 Hour Service. - as long as you say you're sorry. Forgiveness on demand and the consequential loss of guilt has plenty to do with thinking you can do anything you want.
If you really want to argue christian theology, I'm more than willing to engage you in discussion, so long as it's stipulated that I don't actually believe IN any of it.
Now, on to antinomianism. You are quite possibly correct when you cite references about the Reformation, Luther, Agricola et cetera. I frankly have better ways to occupy my free time than to verify the accuracy of your assertions. If this makes me lazy, so be it.
If I may pose a question to you: what of the biblical passage saying "unto the pure, all things are pure"? Sounds rather like carte blanche to do as you please, - whether or not "all things" are contrary to civil, moral or canonical law is not defined. Seeing as how you're obviously the dictionary/etymology nut, please define the words "all" and "things" as they relate to the verse mentioned above. Also explain what is meant by "pure", vis-a-vis eternal salvation regardless of sin. Include whether or not a saved sinner is "pure". Please also note that the distinction between moral, civil and canonical law was not entirely clear until a few scant hundred years ago, with the creation of secular (read: godless if you like) states that mandated separation of church and government.
Also what of the oxymoronic concept of "deceivers yet true"? Again, carte blanche to break the law as long as your heart is in the right place. IMO, this is christian antinomianism at it's finest. One set of laws for you, one set of laws for me. Perhaps it may have also been a heresy or schism at some point during the middle ages (what wasn't?), but who cares? I think the point was that The Family doesn't believe that the law of mere mortals applies to their actions. This again, is a classic example of Christian antinomianism. "My law is above your law". I don't know if there's an easier way to condense this into a format you can understand.
Regarding certain slang: you really are perpetuating the stereotype of the humourless German. Get over yourself already. What does bug me about you self-acclaimed Greek scholars is that you constantly are trying to rewrite Christian history based on obscure meanings. Yeah, we're all well aware that things have been lost in translation. I'm also well aware that no amount of retranslating is going to change Christianity as we know it today. It's best to just write the whole mess off, and go with a secular moral code that doesn't have convenient "get out of jail free" cards festooned all over it.
Aside: you seem to be interested in the "real" Christianity. You should be well aware of the fact that the Greek Church of St. Paul bore little resemblance to the almost Essene way of life that was the Hebrew Church. If you want to think of it a simpler way, Paul was the first christian cult leader. If the "true" Jesus is what you're after, (you might start by calling him by his Hebrew name, Yoshawa) well, you're basically screwed going the Greek route. - That is, if accuracy matters. Don't forget that "The Bible" is also a fairly arbitrary collection of books decided on by a council a few hundred years ago. (Yes, I've read the Apocrypha.. interesting reading actually, in a tacks-for-breakfast kind of way)
Oh, by the way, both my parents ARE out of The Family, smart guy. If you don't know from personal experience why they didn't leave immediately after their pet trips were over, I like to think of it this way: they traded in their addictions. Where it used to be that they "needed" their heroin/coke/acid/booze, now they "needed" their word time/fellowship/sharing nights, conveniently supplied by their live-in pushers. Not that this is a real good excuse or anything. The notion of thinking you have a direct line to all the answers is intoxicating indeed. Blind belief is powerful. But I'm sure you know that already.
(snip) I don't like it that criminals get less charged when they are under drugs/alcohol. Fair?? (/snip)
Dude, WTF are you trying to say here? Is this an argument against alcohol &/or drugs that you admit to not trying? Is it a disjointed comment on the Legal System you live under? Discuss! Are you disgusted that lighter sentences are handed out for crimes committed "under the influence"? I don't know what Germany is like, but intoxication as a defense is pretty damn weak in the courts here, and generally the sentence imposed is NOT lighter than otherwise, in fact it's often more severe. If I may ask, how exactly are you qualified to comment on substance abuse as a self-proclaimed teetotaler? Diatribes from you right-wing christians about the bugaboo of "drugs" are lame at their absolute brightest.
Oh, and I do tell plenty of Christians off. This amounts to persecution in their book, 9 times out of 10. - I've had more productive and entertaining conversations with a concrete post than with the average born-again believer.
(snip)I can't tell you or others, that I find it dangerous to assume, a Christian could have the potential to break any law? (/snip)
I might take this opprtunity to tell you that I'm frankly frightened by the assumption that someone WON'T break the law because they are Christian. You know the common excuse: "we're churchgoing christians! we wouldn't do (insert crime here)!" Naivete at best. (JoeH, don't give me sh!t about non-english characters. I'm not the Alt-xxx type :-P)
(snip)Since you're apparently smarter than me, why don't you prove the missing, that the antinomianistic believers (Christians??) were willing to ignore, break any civil law.That proof is missing! (/snip)
Missing? Dude, I don't even have to leave the covers of the Bible to prove that one! (Paul defying banishment order from Ephesus (or was it some other Asia Minor city?) springs immediately to mind) But I fear that continuing this line of discussion might bring up talk of "persecution", which you find boring.
(snip)I wouldn't dare talk like that about athiests(sic), many of my relatives are at least agnostics...so spare me with that lame defense, since it's you, who has lost about all respect for Christians & I was simply defending people outside of TF, mind you...might be someone in your neighborhood (/snip)
Again, dude, WTF is your point? And what defense are you talking about? There are Atheist (note spelling) criminals, there are Christian criminals. The difference is that the Christian criminal feels forgiven when he gets down on his knees. (My God's Law is higher than yours don't forget) Oh, and Agnostics can have their cake too. I don't believe in the unknowable.
Your little remark about the wounded wounding others is well, a lovely, if simplistic sentiment. Nice of you to presume that you know me.
(snip)Let's see how you react, when your kids would ask you for forgiveness for something stupid they did.You'll
be harsh, won't you??? No, you wouldn't!!!!!(/snip)
So let me get this straight, you want me to hold you, as a full grown adult, in the same category as my toddler son. Wow, I couldn't agree more with ya, this time :). Besides, I haven't been harsh, just snidely condescending. - Get it right! What *was* your excuse for joining the cult anyway?
Later.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From farmer
Monday, February 16, 2004, 06:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hello roughneck, hope I don't get charged for causing anybody
to get eye (or whatever) sick...but I don't try to sneak away from the issues...sorry for being longwinded...again it't not an easy subject for "smalltalk"...may be I start with a "confession"...I learned Greek for a bit less than a year...it was then a problem to get my nightshift-duties in line with the study schedule...I wouldn't be able to call it sufficient knowledge, however a start to keep me from some misunderstandings.I agree, that not only some wordings have
been lost by copying, quite likely/ or been confused at the minimum, but things got just bad translated & the translator
gave often the translation some personal slant or "spin"...
A fitting example, KG translation has it this way: ..because iniquity shall abound ...Luther translates, because the
unbelief shall abound...good tranlations have here from Greek
anomian a: without,not...lawlessness. That was the subject!
Why did Luther translate pretty misleading, not to say quite wrong?Well, I heard, that he didn't trust the simple German readers to get it right, regarding law vs. grace etc.
What about Berg?In some basic letter Faith he claims, that
the verb pisteuo stems from drinking in. Though both verbs start with p (potable water e.g.), I haven't found out yet,
where he got that information from, something somebody shared
first in TF with me, somebody who had learned Greek in school, but he didn't want to sound to critical : )
Pistis/faith can mean: trust, credibility, financial credit,
guarantee, proof I find it better, to go look it up at places, where they give references, to get sounder advice.
I don't want to base my opinion on strange twistings & false information, as much as I can avoind it (has nothing to do with rewriting history, the mistakes are evident, it's about not to always repeat the same ones.)
It would also be interesting to research, who tried to rewrite history for secular reasons, for fame & power etc.I am aware of it, that there has been a longstanding link between religion & political/financial power.I am not negating it or overlooking it.Who gets out of jail free now, where there is a seperation of Church & State?If someone is guilty, he should go to jail or whatever, to get the penalty designed by society.
Deceivers yet true: And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man, others said, no; he deceives the people. John 7:12 Both times it's the same root, as far as the Greek word for deceiver/deceiving is concerned. It's a matter who considers you a deceiver & who a good person, as with Jesus,
so with Paul.The translation "yet true" is pretty bad, cause
grouped together in opposition (in meaning), two by two, are
nouns, so the KGV-translation could be called misleading...
better would be: as deceivers and truthabiders [if that's
possible, nouncheck pls. ; ) ]
Good, I also read OT & NT noncanonical writings...Marcion had his own canon...to get a further idea of those times, I'd say
it's good to read them.And you're veeeery right, Jesus has been taken too much out of the Hebrew/Jewish context.Something some scholars of today (& before?) seek to
counterbalance.
Alright, there was a dispute first with Peter, later with
others...of the church in Jerusalem...later elsewhere...they got then an agreement;but that wasn't the end of quarreling,
meanwhile many scibes had joined & probably felt quite uneasy
about Ex-Pharisee Saul/Paul ...proves, that there was unity only for a pretty short time, although through plenty of councils they always tried anew, to reach that unity.
Well, I am glad, that the courts/laws in Canada can provide
for a different sentence than in Germany.In Germany it was
often the easy way out for having been drunk at "crime time".
This is disputable & experts like Nancy I highly respect.
Whether I am right wing, I wouldn't know...since 5 years I am
in the labour union even if I hardly share all their views.
I was looking more for answers as a teen/twen among the
Marxists than on the other side.Don't know, how you suspect
that...Yes, Germans are terrible...may be I have humor, my
colleagues seem to think so.But I sure like to laugh a whole lot...including about my own mistakes.Before I went to the
church I go now to, I spent some time with the kids to watch
the best comedy shows, since laughing is sometimes a remedy...it was during some pretty tough & troubling times.
I was not much into alcohol & drugs, because I thought always, that there must be another "more expensive" way to get rid of ones problems, but it's not that I am forbidding myself to drink some wine or beer...after all, Jesus turned water into wine & I imagine, there's some left for me for special times.
You're frightened by the assumption that someone won't break the law, because they're Christians?
You therefore who teaches another, you don't teach yourself?
You preach not to steal & you steal?You say, not to commit
adultery & you commit adultery? (Romans 2)...what I don't want others do to me,I shouldn't do unto others either & what
I want others do unto me, I should do to them.Although keeping that in mind, I agree with you & have expressed that opinion before, that there are times, where you do not too
well, from namecalling to whatnot...neither can I see, that
the people in Corinth or elsewhere (See the churches in Rev.) were perfect overnight.I guess they had battles with their
weaknesses for very long, presumably until their dying day.
Super big part of Christian teaching & daily life is to seek forgiveness & in return & consequence also giving that.
I don't think it's so easy, to ask for forgiveness.Many are
just too proud for that.
Did you ever see that picture of the naked girl, Cambodian or
Vietnamese, who was running over the mudroad screaming with
pain...it was during the Vietnam war...because she got hit
with parts of a napalmbomb...as a grown up she immigrated to Canada, I think.The bomberpilot was searching for her & I
saw in a reportage, how in an embrace she forgave him, that's what he desired very much.To me that was super touching!!!!
I almost forgot, yeah, Peter didn't obey the order of that
religious council either, when they forbade him, to preach in His name.Neither did the Christians in the Roman empire bow
down to the images of Caesar or whatever idol, neither did
Daniel in his days.Well, that was the point of "no return", in many cases.I respect their decision.
I am very happy, that your parents are out as well.Tx. for sharing that.Wished, that could be said of all the SGAs here.
I am glad, you have a family of your own.Wonderful.
If the non-Christian criminal served his sentance, he feels,
probably in many a case, that he has paid for his crime.The
Christian, having done some crime, serves the sentence as
well, don't forget that; but he'll for sure seek the Lord one of his days about that (Singing Sams biographie/testimony,
telling his experiences as a juvenile delinquent, goes in that direction)
That saying/advice about the wounded, I've also applied to myself.
You still care to know how/why I joined, yes, I could tell you that, if that's really in your interest??!!
Before I forget again, since quite long there's that discussion going on whether someone could loose his salvation under certain conditions (sin).In the 17century there was a certain Arminius, who thought that way; opposed to that are
the Calvinists...both sides you find represented in churches
of today. TF was of the OSAS-Type: Once saved always saved.
One webside with quite detailed information I found at:
www.lasttrumpet.com also with plenty information about the
Gnostics...TF reminds me in a lot of them...Simon the Magician/Samaritan was supposed to be at their origin.(Acts 8)...Tx for the opportunity to communicate...
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From farmer
Saturday, February 14, 2004, 05:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hello roughneck...last night I already prepared my heart to
have to read the next day, that I am excommunicated...so I had
planned some form of "humble", sarcastic retreat...well, it's hard to leave the arena being confronted with such a powerpacked "letter"...may I give you, without being cynical, an A+grading - although I am not so sure how you grade things
there across the ocean - for your homework (you had somebody helping you ;) )....Pls. allow, if need be, "a chopped up" answer,concerning the delivery, Salami-style, since you packed in a lot & you know, I am neither Mr. big brains, nor Mr. Know it all & rather Mr.Slow & also sometimes a bit lazy (Tx. for making me feel comfortable in that regard)...so I'll
try (or I might have to "threaten" to email you instead),alright??
First I like to assure you, that I like a grammar check..it's
meant in a helpful way, so I could avoid silly miss-takes the next time (feels also like being in school again, was a great
time...really...in that regard it's super awful what
we FGAs made miss you & I was never of the opinion, to have
the kids super seperated from everybody...my kids are going to public schools & not any special ones, can't afford it & I
want them to face the world)
I learned to take the risk of own mistakes in my letters easier, when I heard the following Chinese wisdom: If you write a letter to a friend, leave some mistakes therein, that'll make him feel superior...Atheist...now I got it...
No need for me to be in any superior position.
The second paragraph is really right on, compliments, but see, that's also my point of view & although I wouldn't want to distract you from movingon., such views I shared also at ex.fam../journeys.A good friend of mine (as a constructionworker he learned perfect Hebrew, with lots of good will) brought me on that train of thought, that lots of churchpeople...TF not to speak of...want it real easy..all for nothing/little in return...And since Antinomianism got unfortunately a big boost from a German, I thought I might also owe it, to protest aginst it...
Loss & lack of guilt...you really said it...don't have to add to it (although I could drone on...my poor kids at home...
Bergian disease or own weakness)
But you know what, if you sin unintentionally, do something wrong (sin/harmatia...not reaching a goal...mostly in a spiritual sense...harmatano, to miss, being deceived...originating in the lack of "Gnosis", knowledge),
I have experienced, you get shown the errors & yes, it feels wonderful, to be forgiven...I don't advise, to let's say err
in the full knowledge, that it's wrong...kind of a David /Bathsh.-case....which proves, that feelings have a mighty grip on the soul...
I like to be convinced ; ) , that doctrine & belief can either be right or wrong...faith however is something given to you as a gift..although apparently kind of growing or getting stronger through the word...The source of faith given in my frame of mind, I have no choice but saying, that that is always correct, the keeper of such faith could be titled
Christian...true, it's often puzzling, how good people maintain something as faith, when it's many times a false belief...sometimes easy to detect by the word...sometimes it's seems to be rather difficult.
I am happy to discuss things with you, proving probably myself of being incapable of gettings things straight & in the end you annoyed ; ) Well, I continue to learn, reflect...putting things on the shelf until I get more evidence about something, avoiding to be dogmatic about real complex matters....but since much is also backed by own experience...how could I then or someone else deny that?And
even if someone should denounce that...well, I am happy with what I got & that's what matters to me personally...
Unto the pure all things are pure...panta kathara tois katharois...all pure unto the pure...not much progress!!!
Well, I checked & it's often more in the physical sense, the wordgroup pure...I interpret - like others - that the believer is purified inside, things like what he eats etc.
doesn't make him unclean,...there's to my understanding a link to Mark 7:15...it doesn't matter so much for you what goes inside of your mouth (besides a bellyache or whatever,
you know what I mean in a spiritual way), but what comes out...those things that come from the heart...
Many verses have been used in TF - but not only there!!! -
like a rubberstring or elastic...to fit things to the personal imagination of the reader...I am convinced, that as
you overstretch the elastics in order to fit the many crossreferences, that sooner or later your system collapses,
the strings snap...while in the beginning you might not realize it...
For the above verse it seems safest for the beginning to have it interpreted as an advice regarding matters what to eat, what & when to touch (touching dead people, other than very close relatives, if I remember correctly, too lazy to look that up, made you unclean too...& remember the touching of His garment...she lost b l o o d , from all I know)...make suggestions - keeping the overall biblical advice in mind -
of whether the whole thing can be stretched further, without
causing a snap so to speak, when in doubt, don't , Ha : )
sorry, for such quotes...but I suspect that Berg like a basin
collected quotes throughout his life...how much is originally
of him??
The question regarding salvation is a super tough one...I ponder that since being out...after all Paul mentions plenty the need for sanctification...you can't just do as you please.Ancient Korinth was a harbour city, quite open to influences from the farflung world, also with many rich, so that congregation there had loads of problems & it seems, they had sexually a libertinistic way of life.Paul
did't encourage them to continue to have a great time, having all things in common etc...That's why Berg had the nerve to have a cartoon of him sitting on a parkbench in "space city"
& telling him in a nice way that he was wrong about this & that & Paul admitting to that...yeah, because a greater than
Paul was he..."there's a pyramidical structure" as far as
authority is concerned, & he made us believe that he was really way up high, those ancient David prophecies...Sorry,
really sorry to say, we gave in, caved in under the (at least)monthly barrage of sly teachings...alright, I agree,
I wasn't smart, wise enough...learned the hard way...
Back to salvation, there are many who say that the real child of God can't get lost..nobody takes them out of my father's hand...well, as you argue & others with you, that could be an invitation to do as you please...& misbehaviour
we don't find only in Korinth...tons of books have been written about the crimes linked to Christianity throughout history...some of them I have at home...(But if you're in the father's hand, I would assume - Him not sleeping - you can't
be a spoiled brat )
May I tell you a "silly" experience out of my own life: whenever I say or do something pretty bad or vengeful,then it starts to burn like mad in my heart & I need to get rid of that...
I claim, that you get dealt with, to not get totally out of line...why do then some people, being called by many Christians, go so terribly overboard...some argue, because they weren't really born again in the first place...kind of a Cornelius...doing good deeds believing in God...they call
such people converted, but not born again...
I suggest, that's the end of the Salami-slice for today, as
duties mount up...Tx. for enduring me...a good & happy weekend to you & whomever else on this board...(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From farmer
Thursday, February 12, 2004, 02:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
Alright, I just did & according to mine the "Christians" in the
early centuries denied the validity of the OT-laws for "Christians",that's the way they referred to Antinomianism; later in the middleages you have the antinomianism-quarrel between Joh. Agricola & Melanchton, later
between the first & Luther (1537 onwards). Luther was pleading or fought for the idea that the law & the Gospel were inseparable (Against the Antinomer, 1539)...I think it depends what side you`re on. I vehemently contradict the thought, that
just because you're Christian, believe in the Gospel, in salvation & grace that you're allowed to break any law you want to, be it civil, religious, moral or what have you."And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" Acts 11:26...the word
disciple mostly in the meaning of pupil.So if the teacher didn't break constantly the laws, the pupils should????How do you understand Romans 13.."Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.." I mean check it up, whether may be the thoughts of Joh.Agricola (latinised from Sneider, Schnitter)
appeal to you...I bet there are contemporary "followers" of
him...at least I feel things being the way I suspected things to run...so if I had a dictionary of the early centuries, they wouldn't even have thought of such "free interpretation"
of Christians vs. law & order...so is it my fault, if things
are presented in a let's say misguiding way????Likewise I bet, that a religious or general dictionary published by people closer to the Lutherans would represent more their way of
thinking.Get it???I've already taken my stand.Have you?
(It's not just about sentiments, mind you, to make it crystal
clear, the whole thing about the above definition centers
around the definition of a Christian; and, as you know,
the word antinomianism can also be referred to in politics &
that's where you get sooner or later to the word anarchy...
I beg to differ...& to take a stand...I assumed to know, where exister puts TF, FGAs & may be "Christians" in general, whatever he thinks they really are!!!!...with "bashing" the first two I could easily live, yet not including the third
party, do you mind??)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From tired of this
Monday, February 09, 2004, 11:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't normally post but here I must, how many times must we hear this defence of the family, here is what happened to me, decide for yourself who should face charges for this series of events.
My family was isolated from the rest of the group by my father choosing to start a home in an out of the way place, he did this because he needed more freedom to carry out his particular abuses, throughout my completely isolated childhood I suffered abuse both violent and sexual, at a certain age I found out it was happening to my younger sister as well, that finally gave me the courage to speak out about what was happening. Luckily for me my sister and one of my brothers backed up my story when questioned by my mother, at this point she could no longer deny reality and reported what was happening to the national leadership (been out a long time and I was young when this happened, can't remember the family term), it took them almost a year to come to a decision about what to do, during which time my father was still living with us as the abusive head of our completely isolated household, what was eventually done was he was excommunicated and we were all told that this was punishment enough, and my mother was demoted to DFO status and became a single parent mother of our huge family of broken children, it was a few years living isolated there before we were allowed to rejoin the family proper (possibly the only way that the regular family could ever be an improvement on anything). It's weird that my first real experiences of anything approaching normal human interaction was in a family home, just goes to show that everything is relative.
A few years later I left, when I was old enough, so did my sister and a few of the rest of my siblings as they reached the age that they could, it is now too late to pursue legal action against my father particularly as my siblings are no longer willing to stand up in court and say what was done to them, the past is the past and they want to live their lives as best they can, my mother is no longer in this country and she has 'forgiven' my father for the things he did to her children, very magnanimous of her I'm sure, no doubt the lord has revealed to her that my father has changed, funny how he never bothered telling her what he was doing to her kids at the time, but enough of that, god forbid I should be 'bitter', perhaps I'm in the wrong for not forgiving him and bringing my family around for him to babysit, ptl tyj.
All this would not have been the case if he was tried then when it was still fresh in everyone's memory what kind of monster he is, if my mother was not told that a court case would be damaging for the family and she should instead trust in the lord to make him see the light and she'd have to be excommunicated if she decided to do this, he could have been locked away and been given a criminal record that would make it far more difficult to hurt anyone else like he hurt us, perhaps he'd even have been beaten to death in prison by some civic minded armed robber. But it's too late now as it's not my decision alone to make, there are other real people with real lives which would be destroyed if I went after him and I can't get anyone else to testify so the case would probably fail anyway, someday I may solve the problem another way.
To me the criminals here are:-
First, my father, for obvious reasons.
Second, the leadership who were directly involved in this decision, perverting the course of justice and intimidating a witness.
Third, the policy makers who decided that reporting a paedophile to the authorities should be excommunicable, again, perverting the course of justice, intimidating a witness and of course conspiracy re the above.
I don't know the law, but I'm fairly sure that there's more than one criminal in my story and I'm sure I'm not the only person here who has experienced this. Even if there isn't a law that could be used against the people who created this environment and made these decisions there should be, as long as they are allowed to operate in this way putting the family's PR above the rights of their children and members there will always be more cases like mine.
I wish I never needed to see this 'Individuals' argument bandied about on this site again but I know I will do, and it will always make me feel physically sick to hear these pigs defended, they protected the abomination who destroyed the childhoods of me and my siblings, they have chosen which side they are on, they are on my list.
You'll have to excuse the absence of details and my anonimity, it's hard enough talking about this stuff without holding up a namecard while I do it, and besides, the story is not mine alone to tell.
People who haven't been abused should stfu and not try telling real victims who they should and shouldn't be angry at, go get your own problems instead of telling us how we should be getting over ours.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From obvious
Monday, February 09, 2004, 12:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's the emphasis you place on the word INDIVIDUAL, the block capitals are something of a giveaway, the simple fact of the matter is that your one sentence statement is a load of hooey,the very clear implication is not to go after the group, but to go after the INDIVIDUALS, I am saying that the entire leadership structure of the group, right the way to the top, are all responsible, so no we are not agreeing.
If you're trying to backpedal now don't even bother, you've made your position CLEAR enough.
Can't stand it when people come back and try and twist their words when they realise they've made an idiot out of themselves, I'll repeat my earlier statement a little clearer for you, if you weren't abused then SOD OFF, the decision of who to prosecute does not involve you.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Tuesday, February 10, 2004, 12:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually, it’s you who’s made an idiot of yourself by your extraneous rambling. If you read my other posts you’ll see I’ve always advocated going after the leadership, instead of the little guys who’ve always taken the heat in the past. Obviously this doesn’t include the ones who are criminals as well.
It’s funny how people always try to back up disjointed logic with vulgarity. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Albatross
Monday, February 09, 2004, 11:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wolf,
A group such as the Family is made up of individuals, INDIVIDUALS. Those individuals are protected by the GROUP. If you hit one, you will always hit the other. The collective is guilty of sheltering the individuals. When the Catholic priests were found to have molested children....It was the individuals who went to jail, and it was the CHURCH that paid the price in terms of financial judgments or settlements. They also paid the price in loss of prestige. In the case of The Family, it is the very top leaders: Zerby, Kelly(Amsterdam), Grant, as well as some of their more notable members,: Sara Davidito, Marc (Lonnie Davis), etc, who have been guilty of some of the most egregious crimes. While there are those who will argue that TF can go on without them, we have yet to have see substantive proof of that claim. I would submit that if TF were to help us pursue the individual abusers, then the school of thought that argues for just targeting the abusers is spot on. However, since TF defends, hides and protects them, and since there is sometimes nothing to separate the abusers and the leaders themselves, we are obligated to target them all in our effort to obtain answers and justice.
Daniel
(reply to this comment) |
| | from chokehold
Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 18:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Offenders who wish to reconcile with their victims should be expected to face the shame associated with their victimization of another human being"
This is so true. But do they wish to reconcile with their victims at all? Do they even care? The very fact that they will seemingly do anything to avoid being exposed is indicative of the degree of empathy they have for those they hurt. They only care about themselves and this is an obvious thread that runs through the whole cult: selfishness and self preservation, with a bullet proof justification: acting in God's name.
(reply to this comment)
| from Mydestinyismine
Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 02:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Since the TF is into open humiliation and public confessions they should have the guilty parties come forth. They should act on all their beliefs. I know the unimportant ones in TF had to.
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]