Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 18, 2007 12:48PM
To the Forum:
Recently, I have become aware of some new terminology, surrounding cults. "Cult-like" or "benign cult" in contrast to full blown destructive cult. "Cult like" groups share some destructive characterisitcs as full blown destructive cults. I knew how Dr. Lifton classified "a cult", but I was not aware of the range of classification of cult groups here.
There is no doubt Thieme definitely falls into these warning signs:
See [www.culteducation.com]
Personally, I would say Thieme's cult is a "sleeper cult". Although Thieme's cult is highly trained to obey the law, if there were 3 or 4 liberal democrat presidents in a row, you would see Thieme's cult become very active in anti-government activities. I don't think Thieme's cult would be so law abiding, at that point it would become a full-fledged destructive cult.
I know from personal experience that Thieme's group was psycologically and emotionally damaging. There were cases of schizophrenia, where Dr. Wall said he had counseled some ex-thiemites. I know of cases where thiemites were disoriented to the point of identity breakdown and dysfunction. They were "rebuilt" back up into the copying of Thieme's behaviour, speech, and mannersims. I know of cases where the communication of the individual with self and others was broken down, I know Thieme was totalitarian and the only person in charge of Bereichah and taught a false theological concept of sole pastoral authority. Questioning degraded over time to little, none, or severely limited. I know people were shunned, looked down upon, or completely ostracized for questioning what Thieme said. I know thiemites had a cult of confession that causes people to confess to anything true or false like someone who is being tortured will confess to anything true or false - the corrupt rebound mantra - which some people are so distracted from thier normal human function while confessing that they bump into walls and hurt themslves(albeit it was self-induced). I know extreme fear was induced unnecessarily into the environment, Including Thieme picking out an imaginary victim to "chew out" so everyone would pay better attention (I think he enjoyed the power of watching people's reactions) Loaded language was used in the group that outsiders do not "understand". There was a definite "us verses them" "black and white" views of the world, I know the false doctrine as spoken and taught by this leader becomes more important than the indivdual.
Peace,
Truthtesty
Recently, I have become aware of some new terminology, surrounding cults. "Cult-like" or "benign cult" in contrast to full blown destructive cult. "Cult like" groups share some destructive characterisitcs as full blown destructive cults. I knew how Dr. Lifton classified "a cult", but I was not aware of the range of classification of cult groups here.
There is no doubt Thieme definitely falls into these warning signs:
See [www.culteducation.com]
Personally, I would say Thieme's cult is a "sleeper cult". Although Thieme's cult is highly trained to obey the law, if there were 3 or 4 liberal democrat presidents in a row, you would see Thieme's cult become very active in anti-government activities. I don't think Thieme's cult would be so law abiding, at that point it would become a full-fledged destructive cult.
I know from personal experience that Thieme's group was psycologically and emotionally damaging. There were cases of schizophrenia, where Dr. Wall said he had counseled some ex-thiemites. I know of cases where thiemites were disoriented to the point of identity breakdown and dysfunction. They were "rebuilt" back up into the copying of Thieme's behaviour, speech, and mannersims. I know of cases where the communication of the individual with self and others was broken down, I know Thieme was totalitarian and the only person in charge of Bereichah and taught a false theological concept of sole pastoral authority. Questioning degraded over time to little, none, or severely limited. I know people were shunned, looked down upon, or completely ostracized for questioning what Thieme said. I know thiemites had a cult of confession that causes people to confess to anything true or false like someone who is being tortured will confess to anything true or false - the corrupt rebound mantra - which some people are so distracted from thier normal human function while confessing that they bump into walls and hurt themslves(albeit it was self-induced). I know extreme fear was induced unnecessarily into the environment, Including Thieme picking out an imaginary victim to "chew out" so everyone would pay better attention (I think he enjoyed the power of watching people's reactions) Loaded language was used in the group that outsiders do not "understand". There was a definite "us verses them" "black and white" views of the world, I know the false doctrine as spoken and taught by this leader becomes more important than the indivdual.
Peace,
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
GeneZ
()
Date: November 18, 2007 03:27PM
Quote
Truthtesty
I know from personal experience that Thieme's group was psycologically and emotionally damaging. There were cases of schizophrenia, where Dr. Wall said he had counseled some ex-thiemites. I know of cases where thiemites were disoriented to the point of identity breakdown and dysfunction. They were "rebuilt" back up into the copying of Thieme's behaviour, speech, and mannersims.
Truthtesty? May I ask how many churches have you ever attended? You think that sort of thing was unique?
Bible teaching does not induce schizophrenia in a normal person. Mentally ill people are attracted to churches.
I knew a woman who said she had had Mother Mary visit her at night. Is that the Catholic church's fault?
Quote
Truthtesty
I know of cases where the communication of the individual with self and others was broken down, I know Thieme was totalitarian and the only person in charge of Bereichah and taught a false theological concept of sole pastoral authority.
Some people are mentally ill, Truthtesty. You want to blame Robert Thieme for not curing them? I have seen this sort of thing in other churches. They allowed the mentally ill to attend. Now? They are to be the cause?
Quote
Truthtesty
Questioning degraded over time to little, none, or severely limited. I know people were shunned, looked down upon, or completely ostracized for questioning what Thieme said.
That's what certain people will do to be found in many churches.
Quote
Truthtesty
I know thiemites had a cult of confession that causes people to confess to anything true or false like someone who is being tortured will confess to anything true or false - the corrupt rebound mantra - which some people are so distracted from thier normal human function while confessing that they bump into walls and hurt themslves(albeit it was self-induced).
So, I suppose that every church I have attended where that had some members who displayed bizarre behavior? It was the pastor's fault???
I have a feeling you have attended only one established church in your life. Anyone who has attended several churches will know that the mentally ill will be amongst us. They do bizarre things wherever they may be found.
GeneZ
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 18, 2007 10:30PM
Posted November 16, 2007 09:21PM
gene: Moderators... I know you do not want preaching here. But, this is a counter for what Truthtesty is repeatedly posting here with your permission. If he keeps wanting to bring up this theological issue in this forum? I ask for the other side to be presented, so those reading can form an opinion based upon having both sides of the argument.
November 17, 2007 05:52PM
Truthtesty: Look at the whole sentence, not just the part you want to extract for your political end. The statement includes shed blood.
"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."
gene: I am not going to argue with you as if what it says is up for interpretation.
Truthtesty: That's all you did was argue as if what the 2nd part says is up for interpretation.
You want to be so exacting on the 1st part and forget rational explanation of the second part. You take the second part out of the context of the sentence. SO be exacting about his shed blood in the context of the sentence. Look at the whole sentence, not just the 1st part.
"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."
gene: I tried to explain to you what the second part of your direct quote refers to. But, you decided to ignore the first part, and to say just the opposite concerning the second part.
Truthtesty: I did not ignore the 1st part. I did not just say the opposite. I include the 1st part. I look at the whole sentence. Your explanation of the second part is illogical.
gene: The ancients used the term "blood" and "death" interchangeably. They also used "blood" and "life" interchangeably as well.
Truthtesty: Kittel and Behm are not ancients, they are moderns. In that sentence, they are not interchanging blood with life or death or visa versa. No where in the context of that sentence is blood said to be anything other than material blood, it's either shed or not shed. It's about material blood, shed or not shed, spoken by modern Kittel\Behm in modern terms spoken about the ancient world. It's not ancient Kittel\Behm speaking to modern people about the ancient world. They used modern German (material blood and shed blood) to explain to modern people about the ancient world about "not his material blood, but in his shed blood". Material blood obviously means literal blood that is not being shed, while shed blood obviously means literal material blood that is being shed.
Again, just as Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer said that it was not the material blood Jesus sweat in the garden, nor the material blood of circumsicion, BUT IT WAS the material blood shed on the cross that was efficacious.
Don't tell me you and Thieme don't want to follow Dr. Chafer closely.
Blood was used interchangebly with other words. I won't argue that, but in that sentence Kittle\Behm are referencing literal material blood either shed or not shed.
Truthtesty: Where is your "counter" gene? "So those reading can form an opinion based upon having both sides of the argument"?
Is it because you would be to embarassed to say what you want to say about this, in front of God and everybody? You don't have one, because you know your wrong.
Thieme misrepresented what even Nazi Doktor Gerhard Kittel and Doktor Johannes Behm said about the blood of Christ, (infamous pregant verbal symbol statement) for Thieme's own false "private interpretation".
Now you and everyone else knows Thieme was wrong about the blood of Christ.
Truthtesty
gene: Moderators... I know you do not want preaching here. But, this is a counter for what Truthtesty is repeatedly posting here with your permission. If he keeps wanting to bring up this theological issue in this forum? I ask for the other side to be presented, so those reading can form an opinion based upon having both sides of the argument.
November 17, 2007 05:52PM
Truthtesty: Look at the whole sentence, not just the part you want to extract for your political end. The statement includes shed blood.
"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."
gene: I am not going to argue with you as if what it says is up for interpretation.
Truthtesty: That's all you did was argue as if what the 2nd part says is up for interpretation.
You want to be so exacting on the 1st part and forget rational explanation of the second part. You take the second part out of the context of the sentence. SO be exacting about his shed blood in the context of the sentence. Look at the whole sentence, not just the 1st part.
"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."
gene: I tried to explain to you what the second part of your direct quote refers to. But, you decided to ignore the first part, and to say just the opposite concerning the second part.
Truthtesty: I did not ignore the 1st part. I did not just say the opposite. I include the 1st part. I look at the whole sentence. Your explanation of the second part is illogical.
gene: The ancients used the term "blood" and "death" interchangeably. They also used "blood" and "life" interchangeably as well.
Truthtesty: Kittel and Behm are not ancients, they are moderns. In that sentence, they are not interchanging blood with life or death or visa versa. No where in the context of that sentence is blood said to be anything other than material blood, it's either shed or not shed. It's about material blood, shed or not shed, spoken by modern Kittel\Behm in modern terms spoken about the ancient world. It's not ancient Kittel\Behm speaking to modern people about the ancient world. They used modern German (material blood and shed blood) to explain to modern people about the ancient world about "not his material blood, but in his shed blood". Material blood obviously means literal blood that is not being shed, while shed blood obviously means literal material blood that is being shed.
Again, just as Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer said that it was not the material blood Jesus sweat in the garden, nor the material blood of circumsicion, BUT IT WAS the material blood shed on the cross that was efficacious.
Don't tell me you and Thieme don't want to follow Dr. Chafer closely.
Blood was used interchangebly with other words. I won't argue that, but in that sentence Kittle\Behm are referencing literal material blood either shed or not shed.
Truthtesty: Where is your "counter" gene? "So those reading can form an opinion based upon having both sides of the argument"?
Is it because you would be to embarassed to say what you want to say about this, in front of God and everybody? You don't have one, because you know your wrong.
Thieme misrepresented what even Nazi Doktor Gerhard Kittel and Doktor Johannes Behm said about the blood of Christ, (infamous pregant verbal symbol statement) for Thieme's own false "private interpretation".
Now you and everyone else knows Thieme was wrong about the blood of Christ.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: November 18, 2007 10:50PM
GeneZ:
You have been asked before to refrain from using big bold black text in your posts.
Please stop this practice.
You have been asked before to refrain from using big bold black text in your posts.
Please stop this practice.
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 19, 2007 12:27AM
To the Forum:
Quote:
Truthtesty
"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."
gene: Truthtesty?
You can not have it both ways. You are flat out trying to. For if what you are saying is the case? You have quoted a self contradictory statement to make your point.
Truthtesty: gene?
NO, I am not contradicting anything. I am not looking to have it both ways.
You can't take away the literal meaning of literal "shed blood" as the life is violently taken. "Shed blood" means shed material blood.
Shed blood in that sentence is not figurative shed blood, it's real shed blood and it's real life that is taken, albeit to describe the figurative usage of blood in the ancient world.
"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."
(modern literal meaning of the word) interest
(modern literal meaning of the word) NT
(modern literal meaning of the words) material blood
(modern literal meaning of the words) shed blood
(modern literal meaning of the word) life
(modern literal meaning of the word) violently
(modern literal meaning of the word) taken
To describe to modern people what the ancient interest of the NT was in the ancient figurative meaning of the word "blood" , in this case, to describe "blood" as "literal material shed blood and literal life taken".
Truthtesty
Quote:
Truthtesty
"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."
gene: Truthtesty?
You can not have it both ways. You are flat out trying to. For if what you are saying is the case? You have quoted a self contradictory statement to make your point.
Truthtesty: gene?
NO, I am not contradicting anything. I am not looking to have it both ways.
You can't take away the literal meaning of literal "shed blood" as the life is violently taken. "Shed blood" means shed material blood.
Shed blood in that sentence is not figurative shed blood, it's real shed blood and it's real life that is taken, albeit to describe the figurative usage of blood in the ancient world.
"The interest of the NT is not in his material blood, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken."
(modern literal meaning of the word) interest
(modern literal meaning of the word) NT
(modern literal meaning of the words) material blood
(modern literal meaning of the words) shed blood
(modern literal meaning of the word) life
(modern literal meaning of the word) violently
(modern literal meaning of the word) taken
To describe to modern people what the ancient interest of the NT was in the ancient figurative meaning of the word "blood" , in this case, to describe "blood" as "literal material shed blood and literal life taken".
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 19, 2007 12:41AM
To the Forum:
Quote:
Truthtesty
I know from personal experience that Thieme's group was psycologically and emotionally damaging. There were cases of schizophrenia, where Dr. Wall said he had counseled some ex-thiemites. I know of cases where thiemites were disoriented to the point of identity breakdown and dysfunction. They were "rebuilt" back up into the copying of Thieme's behaviour, speech, and mannersims.
gene: Truthtesty? May I ask how many churches have you ever attended? You think that sort of thing was unique? Bible teaching does not induce schizophrenia in a normal person. Mentally ill people are attracted to churches. I knew a woman who said she had had Mother Mary visit her at night. Is that the Catholic church's fault?
Truthtesty:
True bible teaching doesn't. but Thieme does. That's a typical response from ABUSERS IS "It's the victims fault".
In any case, Dr. Wall disagrees with you.
Dr. Wall's doctoral dissertation:
It is true that forgiveness is based on the work of Christ, and that all that is needed to appropriate Christ's provision for cleansing is to confess (or agree with God about) one's sins. It is also true that this does not require sorrow for sins or promises to do better; but neither does it rule out the normal expressions of one who truly takes God's attitude toward sin in his life. Unless the full ramifications of true agreement about (or acknowledgement of) sins are taught, there can be practical abuses of the doctrine of confession. Without these clarifications the teaching of confession and forgiveness can possible produce in the carnal mind a "license mentality."15 In some cases it can even result in a rationalization of the continuing existence of sin16 and the repression of guilt, and this can produce emotional problems and even schizophrenia. The author has personally counseled people with such problems stemming from their abuse of Thieme's teaching on confession and fellowship.
Truthtesty
Quote:
Truthtesty
I know from personal experience that Thieme's group was psycologically and emotionally damaging. There were cases of schizophrenia, where Dr. Wall said he had counseled some ex-thiemites. I know of cases where thiemites were disoriented to the point of identity breakdown and dysfunction. They were "rebuilt" back up into the copying of Thieme's behaviour, speech, and mannersims.
gene: Truthtesty? May I ask how many churches have you ever attended? You think that sort of thing was unique? Bible teaching does not induce schizophrenia in a normal person. Mentally ill people are attracted to churches. I knew a woman who said she had had Mother Mary visit her at night. Is that the Catholic church's fault?
Truthtesty:
True bible teaching doesn't. but Thieme does. That's a typical response from ABUSERS IS "It's the victims fault".
In any case, Dr. Wall disagrees with you.
Dr. Wall's doctoral dissertation:
It is true that forgiveness is based on the work of Christ, and that all that is needed to appropriate Christ's provision for cleansing is to confess (or agree with God about) one's sins. It is also true that this does not require sorrow for sins or promises to do better; but neither does it rule out the normal expressions of one who truly takes God's attitude toward sin in his life. Unless the full ramifications of true agreement about (or acknowledgement of) sins are taught, there can be practical abuses of the doctrine of confession. Without these clarifications the teaching of confession and forgiveness can possible produce in the carnal mind a "license mentality."15 In some cases it can even result in a rationalization of the continuing existence of sin16 and the repression of guilt, and this can produce emotional problems and even schizophrenia. The author has personally counseled people with such problems stemming from their abuse of Thieme's teaching on confession and fellowship.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 19, 2007 12:49AM
To the Forum:
Quote:
Truthtesty
I know of cases where the communication of the individual with self and others was broken down, I know Thieme was totalitarian and the only person in charge of Bereichah and taught a false theological concept of sole pastoral authority.
gene: Some people are mentally ill, Truthtesty. You want to blame Robert Thieme for not curing them? I have seen this sort of thing in other churches. They allowed the mentally ill to attend. Now? They are to be the cause?
Truthtesty:
Some people were mentally ill before, but not the people that I am sepaking of. These people showed no problems BEFORE they attended. And they recovered when they LEFT. Yes. The blame is on Thieme's coercive enviroment and ideology.
Truthtesty
Quote:
Truthtesty
I know of cases where the communication of the individual with self and others was broken down, I know Thieme was totalitarian and the only person in charge of Bereichah and taught a false theological concept of sole pastoral authority.
gene: Some people are mentally ill, Truthtesty. You want to blame Robert Thieme for not curing them? I have seen this sort of thing in other churches. They allowed the mentally ill to attend. Now? They are to be the cause?
Truthtesty:
Some people were mentally ill before, but not the people that I am sepaking of. These people showed no problems BEFORE they attended. And they recovered when they LEFT. Yes. The blame is on Thieme's coercive enviroment and ideology.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 19, 2007 12:54AM
To the Forum:
Truthtesty
Questioning degraded over time to little, none, or severely limited. I know people were shunned, looked down upon, or completely ostracized for questioning what Thieme said.
gene: That's what certain people will do to be found in many churches.
Truthtesty:
That's what range of cults will do to. The reality is - Thieme and thiemites did it.
Truthtesty
Truthtesty
Questioning degraded over time to little, none, or severely limited. I know people were shunned, looked down upon, or completely ostracized for questioning what Thieme said.
gene: That's what certain people will do to be found in many churches.
Truthtesty:
That's what range of cults will do to. The reality is - Thieme and thiemites did it.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 19, 2007 01:02AM
Quote:
Truthtesty
I know thiemites had a cult of confession that causes people to confess to anything true or false like someone who is being tortured will confess to anything true or false - the corrupt rebound mantra - which some people are so distracted from thier normal human function while confessing that they bump into walls and hurt themslves(albeit it was self-induced).
gene: So, I suppose that every church I have attended where that had some members who displayed bizarre behavior? It was the pastor's fault???
I have a feeling you have attended only one established church in your life. Anyone who has attended several churches will know that the mentally ill will be amongst us. They do bizarre things wherever they may be found.
Could be, but,
This isn't about other churches this is about Thieme. And what I said happened happened exactly, by following exactly what Thieme said to do. Thieme's teaching on rebound are false, as has been documented by Dr. Wall.
And your wrong, I have been to more than 1 church.
Truthtesty
Truthtesty
I know thiemites had a cult of confession that causes people to confess to anything true or false like someone who is being tortured will confess to anything true or false - the corrupt rebound mantra - which some people are so distracted from thier normal human function while confessing that they bump into walls and hurt themslves(albeit it was self-induced).
gene: So, I suppose that every church I have attended where that had some members who displayed bizarre behavior? It was the pastor's fault???
I have a feeling you have attended only one established church in your life. Anyone who has attended several churches will know that the mentally ill will be amongst us. They do bizarre things wherever they may be found.
Could be, but,
This isn't about other churches this is about Thieme. And what I said happened happened exactly, by following exactly what Thieme said to do. Thieme's teaching on rebound are false, as has been documented by Dr. Wall.
And your wrong, I have been to more than 1 church.
Truthtesty
Re: R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: November 19, 2007 01:32AM
To the Forum:
gene: If your quote clearly states that the interest was not in the material blood? And, it does clearly states that. Then? You can not turn around and make the second half of the quote to mean what it just stated is not the case. But, you are trying to do just that with great determination.
Truthtesty:
I can appreciate your compliment, but
The intrest of the NT is not HIS material blood, IT IS HIS SHED BLOOD AS HIS LIFE IS VIOLENTLY TAKEN.
Kittle TDNT states for "haima" The NT is intrest is Jesus's shed blood and Jesus' life violently taken
Jesus' shed blood is literal Jesus literally shed literal blood.
AND (so it's figurative in that includes both "shed blood" and "life taken")
Jesus's life violently taken is literal Jesus literally violently literal life literally taken.
As Dr. Chafer said, not the blood in the garden, not the blood of circumscion, but the literal shed blood in Jesus' obedient death on the cross.
I am not avoiding anything.
Truthtesty
gene: If your quote clearly states that the interest was not in the material blood? And, it does clearly states that. Then? You can not turn around and make the second half of the quote to mean what it just stated is not the case. But, you are trying to do just that with great determination.
Truthtesty:
I can appreciate your compliment, but
The intrest of the NT is not HIS material blood, IT IS HIS SHED BLOOD AS HIS LIFE IS VIOLENTLY TAKEN.
Kittle TDNT states for "haima" The NT is intrest is Jesus's shed blood and Jesus' life violently taken
Jesus' shed blood is literal Jesus literally shed literal blood.
AND (so it's figurative in that includes both "shed blood" and "life taken")
Jesus's life violently taken is literal Jesus literally violently literal life literally taken.
As Dr. Chafer said, not the blood in the garden, not the blood of circumscion, but the literal shed blood in Jesus' obedient death on the cross.
I am not avoiding anything.
Truthtesty
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.