In Reply to: To the in-house editor posted by jo on January 10, 2004 at 12:07:14:
May be I fail to see the difference, but I think reposter's point seems to me, that Berg quoted verses to suit himself or his logic, his way he
perceived God intended things to be, after all him being the big prophet...so how could he be wrong,
even if it didn't jive with Paul or other scripture... he didn't care & the "beauty" of using
so little verses is, that you can construct something totally way off the original meaning.
Berg didn't care, that in the NT you don't find any verse containing eros/love, from what I know....
(In the Septuaginta, Greek old Testament, I think you find it in the Song of Solomon, if I am not mistaken)......In old Greek you have 3-4
words, mainly agapae, philia & eros...which are translated in "our" language as love, one word only
So Berg deliberately (or ignorantly???? I doubt it)
used that to his advantage.
Berg was so bold & stupid to give all scripture an
"erotic twist", as if that was the main interest of God &/or people...even if it`s a super need, the
intention to have that need met within marriage is
clearly visible throughout the Bible...& to be
married to TF was his "great" idea & we were stupid enough to swallow that.
You know good & well, that Berg gave a "sh.." of
what system laws say, what coercion/rape is all
about (also varying a bit from country to country...probably)...as long as he thought something was
God's will...in that he was quite a radical...
radically wrong...he would also have a fitting
excuse..ye should rather obey God than man...
So I agree with reposters point of Berg quoting verses to suit himself & yes, he was a rapist.
You know also, that there was a letter called rape, how he saw things about that...the OT advise is
different as we know & we know, Paul etc. didn't
address the subject...
Anyway, just to say, I agree with your way of portraying things, Jo, which is the way the world sees it, the authorities...& with Romans 13 we would indirectly have an advice of Paul, I guess.
THE SCREAM , I think, is the ill-logic of Berg quoting Mt. 25:45, which means, taken literal,
that we're almost at the Loving Jesus "revelation" (from the pit)...
if you have sex with the least of His brethren, you...you name it &
figure it out....which brings me back to what I said initially...I personally am convinced, that
God's emphasis is on a spiritual union with us.
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and
in truth: FOR THE FATHER S E E K E T H SUCH TO
WORSHIP HIM John 4: 23
(Never mind, that Berg & other cults, by the way,
thought, that sex is such a spiritual thing....
to my point of view it's satisfying to body &
soul...but to the spirit??!!!...worth discussing??...)
Personally, I thought you both are basically on the same line???????!!!!!!!!!!!