oldiesman

It doesn't exonerate him. But I still think its possible that many women wanted to have sex with him as well, and that fact could have just possibly encouraged him right along. BTW Doojable, thank you for not attacking me. :) It's good to just read a calm post.

What the Hey will you please cite your sources. My only ally on this thread is getting hammered.

Well Rascal, that is your impression. But if you are saying that that was everyone's impression, I would disagree with you. you can't speak for everyone. I know folks (myself included) who were not told or ever had that impression. "if you leave the Corps, you will get possessed and die" I don't know Rascal.

All men are born with a sexual predatory nature. One of Dr. Wierwille's problems was that he allowed that nature to get the better of him at various times in his life. They were excesses; but not quite as bad I think as Solomon's excesses who had 700-1000 wives. Maybe Wierwille's problem was he was born in the wrong time period? Maybe if he had been around in Solomon's time, or other times when men had many many wives, he wouldn't have been hassled so much by some posters.

It has not been challenged by me that VPW bore responsibility when he allegedly raped women. I never challenged that point. He does.

That would depend on the heart and mindset of the person making the commitment.

Wordwolf, In practical terms, what then are you saying the Word of God says? Taking a four-year oath to complete the corps program is ungodly? wrong? How about taking an oath when one pledges alliegence to the Flag, and to the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands? Is that wrong or ungodly, according to the bible? ******************* Larry, are you back?

Lifted Up, I'm willing to have a high level of debate, but when dealing with debaters who consistently engage in distracting personal attacks and character assassinations against me, I try to add a little humor once in a while. In my thread to Dave, I tried to be somewhat humorous and I hope some folks took it that way. But I AM sending him his $5.00! :)

You mean they didn't inform you that you were signing up for a four-year commitment? Well I must tell you Rascal, I definitely got that impression when I signed up.

I'm not trying to "focus" on them; just offer the suggestion and possible debating point that folks who participated in Wierwille's excesses may have done so willingly. You seem to want to portray most or all women as helpless victims. But it really depends on the facts and circumstances. BTW, Happy Friday. :)

Wordwolf, So then you're representing that God's Word teaches us that we don't have to keep our promises?

David, Now before you go patting yourself on the back for such a kewl post; the papers you sent me really were not that much more valuable than toilet paper. You sent me two items, the 37-page letter to the Trustees of 1987 by John Lynn, et al.; and the Notes to the Clergy meetings of November 1986. The Clergy Meetings pretty much were vague condemnations from Chris Geer, with no real substance. The Patron Saint of Aloofness at his best. I mean, I've gotten more wisdom from one of Rascal's sentences on a bad day. Such statements by Chris Geer like: --the Corps is going to sleep, forsaking biblical responsibility --there has been abundant insanity at the level of the trustees --massive upsurge of insanity in the Way of the USA resulting in a virtual neglect of God's Word --you wrongly took an action that was not scriptural. About the only thing of any specificity in that paper was Geer's condemnation of John Schoenheits paper on adultery, and the concurrence of the Trustees. Then there was the 37-page letter to the Trustees on February 1987 by John & Pat Lynn, Tom Reahard, Ralph Dubofsky & Robert Belt. An abundance of vague and ambiguous pious platitudes, quoting and praising our father in the word and the teachings of Dr. Wierwille throughout the entire letter, and how the Trustees should get back to them; with no real substance or specific reproof about anything. Nothing specific confronting the sexual promiscuity, adultery, fornication, druggings, plagiarism. Nada. Now about the vast amount of funds you sacrificed to send me this information, you wrote in a cover letter: David, I think you reminded me about this money you sacrificed in a previous post, and also mention it now again. SO I am going to send you $5.00; the $2.00 for the copying costs and $2.67 for the postage fee and throw in a tip. This way I don't have to hear your whining anymore. Now if you would please excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom.

I think I get what you're saying Lifted Up. In other words, someone who believes in pro-choice should be consistent and carry that belief over into twi. i.e., condemning twi for murder because abortions were allegedly "forced", not because "abortion is murder", would be inconsistent. or, someone who believes in pro-life should be just as consistent with all groups and everyone, as with twi If I misunderstand you, please correct.

I never suggested he was. But what do you think about Marsha going back a second time to his motorcoach? Is she exempt from criticism? I think, by her going back a second time after she left the first time, she was facilitating and participating in any "abuse" that may have occurred thereafter. BTW please refrain from namecalling. Let's keep the debate on a higher level.

Ok Skyrider, but in practice, if someone left the Corps, twi allowed those folks to return to the corps if they wanted, or go to twig if they wanted. This is a fact, whether or not they desired folks to come back in. Called by God? Actually to this day, I'm not so sure.

A vow doesn't necessarily have to originate with God in order for God wanting the person to fulfill it. (Numbers 30:2) But if you are saying that all corps vows were ungodly.. well I just disagree with that opinion.

Actually, it did and it does. :) You are still basing your statement on the false premise that there was some "requirement" to make another vow once the first one was broken. DUH.

I get what you're saying What the Hey. Nobody's posts should be so fragile that they are above reasonable scrutiny and criticism.

I trow not. Once the vow was broken, there was no requirement to make another one. DUH. Sounds like you are making up your own rules and regs. :)

No I'm not. I believe your motives and desire was to be a blessing to God, serve God and keep your commitment. That is why I think you made the choices you made, and it follows along with your own testimony.

Well if you want to get technical, I didn't just leave, I was dismissed. There is a difference. I would have liked to stay longer and even asked Craig if I could stay longer the day that he dismissed me; but wasn't allowed to. But yes, I broke the vow, was forgiven and from that point forward attended an excellent twig fellowship. I do know others who had the same experence as me; i.e, leaving the corps, not going back, and later attending twig and prospering. This is a fact that the folks who left the corps were always welcome back (this was pre-POP, I can't speak authoritatively after 1991).

I know the reality of what was expected when one signed up for the corps, and the huge commitment one was making to God and twi. I think you do too, which was why you made the choices you made. That is my assessment, and you really haven't said anything about your experience that would change my mind.

Skyrider, If posting opinions on GS cafe is being a meddler and busybody, I think we all may be guilty. :) I was dismissed from the corps; at that point the vow was broken. I failed to live up to the standards that I vowed to. I saw that, asked God for forgiveness, and moved forward being "Joe Believer". I was forgiven by God, and by twi. But at that point my desire to go corps was diminished. That was ok, because there was never a requirement to go back in residence. I am dealing with facts and reality. Are you?

I don't know that I am "clobbering" anyone over the head. I am posting opinions and of course am open to better ways to do that without compromising content.

Then it must be established. :)