Leaderboard

You stopped writing about it, but you haven't stopped believing it. The despicable human being who's been your hero for decades continues to cloud your judgement. Time after time you've been asked direct questions only to give vague responses. You're a coward Mike. Cowards are at the mercy of their fear. Your fear is that you've been wrong about veepee your entire adult life. You can't admit you're wrong. I accepted your apology several days ago. Now I'm apologizing for having done so. People have bent over backwards here to help you see the error of your ways. You've rejected them all. How can they all be wrong and you're the only one that's right? Ever ask yourself that question? Probably not. And I know you'll cherry pick your resonse to me (if you do at all). And that's ok. I get it. Cause you're a coward.

It was interesting to see what vpw said about David, Nathan and Bathsheba. vpw said that what David did to URIAH was wrong. He said that David's actions concerning adultery, forced sex with Bathsheba (he "TOOK HER" as the Bible says) (she had no literal ability to refuse him so any "consent" would be considered INVALID in any fair court-yet there was no mention of her consenting in any verse), and the murder or Uriah to cover his tracks was "OFF THE BALL." In the Bible, the same was "DOING EVIL." What vpw said David did to Bathsheba was "FOOLING AROUND". The Bible said David "TOOK HER". vpw said he "FOOLED AROUND"- and he used the Nathan-David-Bathsheba incident as a specific example of "RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD." vpw (Orange Book chapter 6: "There are many examples of correction in the Bible. Take David, for instance. David was off the ball. He found beautiful Bathsheba and then had her husband shot while in the front lines of battle so that he, David, could have Bathsheba as his wife. A few people knew about the sequence of events leading to David’s marriage, but nobody had a right to say any- thing because David was king and every woman in the kingdom was technically the property of the king or belonged to the king." ============================== Mike may creatively reinterpret what vpw meant, but vpw was rather clear that "TECHNICALLY" didn't mean this was "de facto" and not "de jure" (illegal but he was able to do so because nobody had the power to stop him from breaking the law), but that this was a LEGAL RIGHT of David's - "NOBODY HAD A RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING". If David broke the law, then people had a LEGAL RIGHT to say so (to say nothing of the obligation to uphold the law.) vpw considered the CITIZENS of Israel to be the SLAVES, the CHATTEL of the King- "every woman in the kingdom was technically the property of the king or belonged to the klng." In case "belonged to the king" was unclear, he doubled down and said they were "PROPERTY". Now, someone can come along later and say that the clear words here- "belonged to" "property" "nobody had a right" - mean something completely different than what they say. Doesn't mean they're correct or that reality changes to match their wishes that the book had said something else.

Folks, I'm done with the evasion that Mike displays. I have offered him lots of space to communicate what he thinks, and asked some easy questions of him. He can't or won't answer. If he ever does, someone please tell me by PM. Meantime, I'm putting him on Ignore. When I want to bang my head against a wall, I'll do that in my own home. Over and out.

I'm done with you, Mike. I've learned to appreciate the frankness of Americans. Generally, I've found they speak as they think (Brits can go round the houses a bit). But I've never meet anyone as evasive as you are. Usually, even a lying person comes clean eventually. But you... do you know what "clean" is?

I don’t have a definitive answer for you on either question - but I will mention a couple of contributing factors to think about. Lying: I think the problem started at the top; if you’ve ever studied Matthew 23 ( Jesus addressing the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees as a bunch of hypocrites) in order to understand the leadership style of The Way International - you’d probably notice many similarities...in retrospect, I think a major unspoken facet of indoctrination in my way corps training was how to become a topnotch hypocrite! We were to learn the fine art of lying to ourselves and others...you learn things like “anything done in the love of god is ok” and “I’ve so renewed my mind that it’s not sin to me” (I’ve heard wierwille say that on several occasions) ...basically it’s an insidious idea that one can become so spiritually mature that you can handle just about anything and so the moral commands of the Bible (don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery, etc.) have little bearing on your walk...and I think there’s a trickle down effect also: your general way-believer is not stupid - sure they absorb the way-doctrine taught at fellowships but also they often learn by the example of leadership; before I went in the corps - a number of folks that worked for our local branch coordinator were complaining about his dishonest business practices...what did the branch leader do ? Why, do teachings on how the adversary is always out to destroy the ministry, of course! how does he do it? One way is people murmuring against leadership...i hid that whole time of lying leadership in my heart - vowing I would not turn out that way when I went in the corps.... After going through the way corps program I’m sad to report that a lot of folks bought into that whole spiritual elitism / hypocrisy stuff...glad I left shortly after my residency - because that $hit can wear down the best of intentions and good hearts. == == == TWI’s view of The Trinity: First off I ought to tell you I am now a Trinitarian - and having come to that through a long process of study and reflection - I don’t think this forum is the best place to handle your question...however, you might want to look in the doctrinal forum of Grease Spot...you can search those topics by typing in “Trinity”... But I will say something on how TWI uses their doctrine of “Jesus Christ is not God “ as a manipulative, coercive and polarizing tool to distinguish TWI from mainstream churches - which basically paints followers of Trinitarian doctrine as idolaters - “and you certainly don’t want to be with that group , now do you ?” I’ve even heard wierwille and LCM state that many who teach the Trinity are born of the wrong seed and that to truly believe in the Trinity one has to be possessed....hmmm chapter and verse please ....yeah I’m calling utter bull$hit on all that! Personally, I’m ok with Christians no matter how they view Jesus Christ - because if he is indeed Lord, then let’s get on with the program of serving our Lord instead of damning to hell Christians who don’t believe exactly like you or I do...so my concern is more with the practical consequence of a doctrine... and one more thing - if you combine the polarizing effect of TWI’s view of Jesus along with their ultra-dispensationalism (that downgrades the importance of the Gospels and promotes an absent Christ) it makes me wonder if there is even much of anything left of Christ in their “brand” of Christianity ....nuff said

Mrs. Wierwille's book, page 233....... ......"When we rented our South Washington Street home in Van Wert, we didn't know how temporary this location would be, as we were very focused on getting the ministry up and running, self-supporting, and growing. Now it was becoming very apparent to us that a larger and more permanent headquarters for The Way needed to be established. So the representatives of the Board of Directors from the various branches looked around their areas for potential headquarters sites. Some of these people were eager to have the headquarters established in the localities where they lived, such as in Troy, Ohio. Fort Myers, Florida, and Chicago, Illinois. In one case where a property was found, the board of Trustees thought the site didn't have enough acreage so they decided not to pursue the location any further. But some of the members of the Board of Directors became so upset with this decision that they left the ministry. Dr. Wierwille stated that we must have lost thirty people because they thought he was totally wrong in his decision to reject that site. And the loss of thirty followers was a major blow to us in those transitional years." ** The Troy area was where wierwille had run advanced classes.......30 (or more) committed, advanced class grads rejected the direction to put headquarters at the family farm. They didn't trust victor and harry to keep monies separate from "the business of the farm." .....page 234, "Since the November 16, 1958, meeting, believers had again worked on plans for starting The Way Biblical Seminary. One proposed location for the seminary was the Wierwille farm. The solicitation of funds to begin work on the seminary found resistance at a meeting of the Miami Valley Group. The Way branch in Troy, Ohio, said that they wanted the farm of The Way in New Knoxville to be kept separate from the spiritual arm of the ministry. They wanted to be sure that their money was going to help spread the work of the ministry and not to help pay off the mortgage at the farm or for the business of the farm. They wanted a seminary to be started, but at a location other than the Wierwille farm." ~~~~~~~~~~~ From 1958-1966.........wierwille travels around the eastern part of USA to teach this foundational class. From the context of Mrs. W's writings, many of these classes were instigated by relatives and denominational laymen who wanted to delve into the scriptures with congregants. More often than not, after this class......most were non-committal to wierwille's ministry in the least. The number of committed followers who arose from those nine years was anemic. Wierwille's personal involvement was NOT working. Think about that.........averaging 10 classes per year for 9 years = 90 classes (and many classes had 20-30 students).........and still, twi was limping along. Even though wierwille boasts about people like Dr. Higgins and Rosalund Rinker........they never stayed with twi. What to do? What to do?.............well, set up a system with less direct involvement from wierwille, right? So, why not coerce people into taking a film class.....where they're subjected to 33-hrs of persuasion.....er, teaching with no questions allowed. Add some bluster and pre-emptive strikes in these stories to keep them focused on their inabilities to believe God's promises.....while never delivering evidence of his own. So, obviously.......after 9 years of road-traveling to teach this class, it needed a new approach: Film the class.......get class on film, then find committed instructors to run class and report back Target the youth........by 1967, time to ditch the concept of reaching church ministers Find a nucleus of fire-brands to assist.......needed Donnie Fugits to reach youth Build a Seminary program.......i.e. corps training program was on the horizon .

Hasn't answered this, either. He just said, I'd "got his heart wrong." Blah blah blah. Poor little Mike.

He still hasn't bloody well answered this. Fudged something, yes, but answered? NO. And he never will substantively answer. But maybe it would be different if the hypothetical women were molested, or raped, by an actual king? Rather than by an alleged minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

So your blaming Twinky for your failure to communicate. It's not our job to figure out when your using abbreviated grammar. Nor is it our job to guess what you mean. It's YOUR job to communicate so someone can understand you. The responsibility of the communication lies with YOU, not Twinky. Me thinks thou protest too much. Scary people don't have to tell you how scary they are. Nor do smart people have to tell you how smart they are. Nor do innocent people have to tell you how innocent they are. People who have to tell me how innocent or honest they are I find suspicious. Honesty or innocence, like intellegence, is made obvious by your actions. An honest person would have answered Twinky honestly, not play games, not dodge, not pettifog. You just proved wht I was claiming: in your parlance, Saint Vic was saying, "I'm the authority (king) who's going to stop me?" Want proof? Look at his actions.

It's amazing what gets conflated, so I'll point it out. A) "The Football Captain always gets his choice of the cheerleaders." The women go for the guy who has one or more of the following: looks, money, popularity, From them, he can select among those he finds most favorable from: looks, popularity. (The system points to that and not to other selectors. Which selectors are GOOD selectors are a whole discussion.) So, the teenage women make freewill choices who to make themselves approachable towards (or approach them), and the teenage men make freewill choices who to approach (or be available to approach.) The "problem" here is that the "top" of both indices pair off (the first string athletes with the first-string cheerleaders.) That's actually sensible. But those who are left out can be troubled by it. It's reality- wealth and other factors are inherited and not distributed by merit. But the adolescents all made their own decisions. They could easily choose someone not on the other index based on their own reasons or even a whim. All legal, all acceptable, all of it not immoral. B) King David ruling Israel under the Mosaic Law- which stressed fidelity in marriage and had NO clause permitting otherwise, even for a King. He chose to break his own law and exert his unequal power over a married woman and had an affair with her. We know nothing about her state of mind, but we know he had the power to break the law at will and have her forced to "cooperate." He even had the power to have her husband killed and make it look like an accident- and he did. She was not free to make a choice there no matter what she actually thought or felt. King David operated outside The Law, and acted immorally. And yet, someone claimed that "TECHNICALLY" this was all right. It was not-it was illegal. The only explanation as to why someone thought it would be legal was someone claiming that "TECHNICALLY" "all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king." However, that was a notion contrary to Scripture- thus the absence of verses supporting that bald claim. The idea that powerful people in Hollywood can rape and molest and get away with it goes along with that sort of justification- yet it's illegal in the US just as it's illegal under the Mosaic Law. That has nothing to do with teenagers choosing who to date.

Why would she bother? Your hoisted by your own petard as frequent as Taylor Swift falls in love. No, your into trying to sell PLAF as theopneustos. So tell me, since its in PLAF books, is the line "All the women in the kingdom belong to the king" theopneustos?

So let's hear it from you, in your own words. Sexual abuse of women is wrong. Sexual abuse of women by purported ministers is wrong. Is abusive. Choose your own words, don't have to be many. You say it. You SAY it, Mike.

That looks like a good blog, Rocky.