Mon 13 Jun, 2005 08:44 pm
Karen Zerby reverses the public admission of Berg's guilt
The other day an excerpt of a GN from July 2004 by Karen Zerby was added to the XFamily article on the Judgment of Lord Justice Ward
I don't recall it being posted elsewhere online previously, so I think it's worth drawing attention to:
Karen Zerby, in 'Shooting StraightÃ¢â‚¬â€ťPart 2' (GN 1087, July 2004), wrote:
DadĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s Teachings on the Law of Love
155. (Mama:) Some people seem to think that just because Dad apologized for not setting clearer boundaries in regards to the Law of Love (see Ă˘â‚¬Ĺ“An Answer to Him that Asketh Us,Ă˘â‚¬
"Some people seem to think that just because Dad apologized for not setting clearer boundaries in regards to the Law of Love...He hacked out of the wilderness some of the basic concepts and truths upon which My world is founded...It was a pioneer effort, and who else had ever done such a thing with such clarity and such pinpoint accuracy..."
HACKING something out of the wilderness and failing to set CLEARER boundaries does not support the conclusion that Berg did something with "clarity and pinpoint accuracy." It indicates just the opposite. If Berg had preached his doctrine with clarity and pinpoint accuracy, clear boundaries would have been set--he would have CLEARED a path in the wilderness, not hacked it out.
The following statement also obfuscates the issue:
"David simply took you back to the Garden of Eden and uncovered and made known the fact that love is pure, pure, pure..."
Failing to define what is meant by the English word "love" is highly problematic. In the Christian scriptures, agape (selfless/egoless) love sets the standard for what is meant by pure or godly love. Brotherly (philos) love can be pure under certain conditions. Sexual (erotic) love can also be pure under certain conditions. However, both brotherly and erotic love are often motivated by self-interested egotism. Berg claims that erotic love is "pure" when motivated by agape love.
That's bullshit. Erotic love, by its very nature--and by all of Berg's written accounts about his personal experience--is grasping and self-interested. How can I know whether someone who feels the desire of erotic love for me is simultaneously motivated by egolessness/selflessness? I can't know that. I can only take their word for it. I am a fool to take a person's word about selfless motivation if they are NOT willing to make certain commitments to my well-being. Like, I'm allowed to say no. I am a fool to take a person's word about selfless motivation if they are NOT willing to take responsibility for the consequences of erotic love. Like, I'm assured of support if the erotic coupling results in pregnancy. I'm assured of my partner's single-minded devotion (e.g., I don't have to compete with someone else for access, attention and resources). Etc., etc.
On a Biblical point, not that I'm a scholar, but how does Berg's taking us back to theGarden of Eden by introducing free sex with whomever and whenever coincide with God's strict rules about adultery and fornication? It seems that God didn't intend for us to just have a free life of sex with anyone we felt like, or else those rules wouldn't have been in place and there would have been more specifics written about rules regarding free-sex.
Berg didn't try to take us back to pure pure pure love, he took us back to free sex, disguising it with love, to make those who didn't want to have it feel guilty, those who wanted to have it got the power to push it on others. This was a really big mistake on Berg's part and hurt many many people.