oldiesman

I think you're engaging in a form of German-bashing here. You're comparing Dr Wierwille to Hitler. Wierwille wasn't a military man bent on removing/destroying the Jewish population. You're comparing a Christian minister with perhaps the most diabolical figure of the 20th Century. Shame shame shame on you. (pointing index finger up and down at you.)

I opine they don't post because they have more important interests and don't want to get into any debates with the posters... what else could it be? do you actually think they have the same opinions about their father as some posters here do?

Tom, I personally know of three ex-twi women (and not spring chickens) who generally agree with my posts. Why won't they step up to the plate? I've asked them to post, but they're just not interested in debating, and have other, more important interests in life. That's their choice. I've often wondered why Dr. Wierwille's daughters don't post. Probably same reason... Tom, just a general suggestion and something you might want to consider: just because there's an opinion about something on the internet doesn't mean it's the prevailing opinion. Remember Richard Nixon's quote about "the silent majority"? It may be applied to this as well.

From what I've heard, participants aren't hassled about any other groups they might support and associate with. Also, CFF isn't as aggressive about collecting funds. (I'd be interested to hear what their take is on "Christians Should Be Prosperous"). Otherwise I think it's sort of like twi in the early 70's. But since I've never gone to any of their fellowships, I could be mistaken.

Just Thinking, that's a great suggestion. On the flip side, did it ever occur to you that there are women, thinking and feeling twi and ex-twi women, who generally agree with what i've been saying?Consider it a possibility ... Have a great weekend, one and all...

Danny I think he earned a doctorate, only problem is, the institution he earned it from wasn't accredited. That was his fault, so if folks like you say he didn't earn it, so be it.Have you thought about or do you realize that the difference between a state accredited institution, and a non-accredited institution, may have nothing to do with the actual workload or curriculum, but may be something as simple as a few thousand dollars paid to the state, to get the license? Still, since Victor Paul was either too lazy, distracted, or poor to go to a state accredited institution, your contention that his doctorate isn't valid has merit. If you're referring to PFAL, I believe God worked in him to adapt it from the various teachings he learned from other men of God scattered across the continent, coupled with what he himself learned from his own study. Was it God Breathed? no. Did he get it by revelation? no. Doesn't make it any less godly, though. Just summarizing:His godly side: He was a Christian with a tremendous ability to teach God's Word and convey upon the listeners, respect for the written word. His dark side: he engaged in sexual harassment and adultery, plagiarism, drinking/smoking; at various times with a mean and condescending demeanor.

Houseisarockin It's possible there are, but that would depend on the facts in each case. I certainly think sexual overtures from Victor Paul and the BOT are sexual harassment, at least. People shouldn't have been harassed in any way, shape or form. So if that's sexual abuse then yeah, there are definitely instances. But it's where it crosses over into the participant actually engaging in the activity, where I bring in my examples. Those mentioned above, mental retardation, children, drugs, are all examples where I'd classify the woman as being a harmless victim. There may be others; folks are free to opine what they are.

Sadistic leadership is a conclusion of this thread, based upon a premise I don't agree with, which is making twi leadership akin to armed military, who have absolute authority over unarmed prisoners. It's excessive overkill. You can try to make a connection, a similarity ... but it just doesn't jive and you can't expect some folks to swallow it cause the comparisons are too dissimilar. (*) yourself

When the predator sins, it's called sin. When the prey sins, it's called ..... hey whatever, it doesn't matter, who cares, let's just focus on the predators sins. Please show me from the bible your standard for living and judging.

Garth, try reading what I wrote in the supposal context I wrote it. Tom, I never suggested either viewpoint, and don't defend anyone's actions when they're wrong. The difference between your thinking and mine seems to be, that you give some folks a free pass and complete exoneration ... while fully condemning others. i simply don't agree with that viewpoint.

I beg to differ with you, it wasn't clear. In fact, it was dark and murky. Which was why this whole topic was kept quiet.I think EVERYBODY knew adultery is and was wrong we didn't need twi to tell us so. We learned early on before twi, from our parents, society, etc. The fact that twi didn't teach it was wrong, shouldn't have been, and shouldn't be now, used as an EXCUSE for people's actions. Otherwise, then let Dr. Wierwille off the hook for LITERALLY AND SINCERELY believing that adultery was only spiritual, and there was nothing wrong with the illicit sexual contact. Think about that for a moment. What if he really believed that? Would you call him an evil person? I wouldn't. But some of you have no hesitation to call him evil regardless, because you know, then and now, that the stuff you heard from him about adultery being ok was baloney. You're so sharp concerning Wierwille's evil words and deeds, but you can't see that other people are capable of thinking and doing evil also? The women who said NO! deserve a round of applause.

Of course, but the premise of this entire thread is that the mogs of twi had "absolute authority" over everything. They didn't. When they screwed up, they screwed up. So did some of the women. Uncle Hairy said: I totally, vehemenently disagree. People are responsible for their actions. When two people commit adultery, TWO people are WRONG. That's all folks.

Because you're suggesting that the woman is either too stupid or coerced to know that adultery is wrong. Sorry, I don't buy your theory. Women of twi knew adultery was wrong, which was why many of them said:NO Again, my belief is that adults are responsible for their actions, unless they are mentally retarded, children, or narcotized.

oh come on... i can't stand that doctrinal section.

Raf, what does that mean?

Rascal, you mean this verse?Gal 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. or this one? Gal 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. or this one? Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. or this one? Gal 6:18 Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with your spirit. Amen.

These could get hot -- early 1970's teaching pamplets. Oldies but Goodies

John, excellent point, and something to really think about. Thanks for sharing.

Johniam, thanks for your support. I have some different opinions as some posters, but doesn't mean I'm calling them liars; just coming from a different perspective. Because I don't swallow whole what some posters think, I'm labelled as calling them liars. Some folks can't or won't accept that folks have different opinions than theirs. I sometimes wonder what would happen if 50 pro-twi folks starting posting at GS? would some posters be able to handle the dissent and lack of acceptance without the namecalling and labelling? Imbus, you make a very good point. Sometimes I feel like "the truth" lies somewhere in between what Rascal and I are saying. Careful consideration of both perspectives isn't a bad idea.

if you have the time, put all of them on individually and you should do better ... good luck.

Rascal, I buy this more than I do the mind control, helpless victim tales. Here you have three women who did the right thing, stood up for themselves and their morality, and were tossed because of it. Hey, that's not an unlikely story, is it? Lots of folks fall into that category. Are they all victims? It really all depends on one's point of view. One may be thankful for the "good" once experienced from twi and what was learned, and lots of folks are. I'm glad those women stood up for themselves and although they were defintely mistreated and when they were booted, at first they felt alone, it was definitely the right thing to do and they didn't compromise their integrity. On a personal note, my tale of leaving twi didn't involve sex, but it involved something about my integrity and though I did the right thing, I was labelled a trouble maker because of it. Hey, no problem... They didn't lose everything by leaving twi, because it says in the bible that our treasures and rewards for standing on the word are laid up in heaven. They lost their friends, families and acquaintences? I have a somewhat different outlook. If their so-called friends, families and acquaintces couldn't give a damn about their feelings, or what they thought and what motivated them to leave -- well then I say to hell with the so-called friends, families and acquaintences. You're better off without them. I guess we can look at everyone as victims if by that you mean we lost everything by leaving twi. yes we lost some, but we also learned a few things and some of us can still be thankful for the godly elements and not think everything was evil and wrong ...

Does anyone have old Way Magazines they want to sell? These seem to be going well... Way Magazines

Digger, if your motives in giving money were love and wanting God to be glorified, God remembers your loving efforts and it certainly didn't go for nought, no matter what twi-2 does with those funds. that's the way i look at it, and seems to work for me...

It really would depend on the mind set of the participant involved, but I do question that those engaged in that activity thought it was a requirement to service the mog in that way; I think most freely availed themselves to do it; others were abused, but I would say generally, no, folks who did that sort of thing didn't think it was sexual humiliation at the time (those who thought it might be, or found it distasteful didn't do it, obviously.) rascal, i still haven't bought the idea that these women were "required" as you say to do this....you make it sound like they had no will of their own. i still don't see that...it sounds to me like you always must portray them as brainwashed, mind-controlled children to get your point across...

Never went and never had any desire to. Folks who freely availed themselves to go into the corps, placed themselves in a position to be required to submit to this discipline. Even this can't be compared to those who were sexually humiliated in Iraq...not even close...