So_crates

Forgiveness does not mean you forget what happened. It means you learned your lesson and won't let it happen again. If a theif robs my house, because I left the door open, I can forgive the theif, but that doesn't mean I'm going to continue leaving my front door open. And just because I forgave the theif, that doesn't mean I won't call him a theif anymore. Two things that always annoy me are the people who preach forgiveness and the people that preach positve thinking. In there context, what they usually mean is forget what happened so we can set you up to be a sucker again. SoCrates

Sounds like something I read once while learning the craft of writing fiction: The more heroic your hero, the more evil the villian has to be. You always want your hero to go up against an opponent just as good (in an evil sense) or greater than he is. If you look back at amny of the movies that fail, they fail because of a whimpy villain. Saint Vic needed the evil FBI so he could contrast how holy he was. That must be true in creating social narratives too. SoCrates

Like Father told him what the origonal sin was? Then I would have to ask, what was Fathers intention of notifying him? So he could notify everyone else? To what end? Several years ago, in Florida, my ex-fiancee got busted for selling tobacco to a minor in a police sting. She wanted to get some information from a store manager she knew. Well, while we were waiting to talk to the manager, in walks the same girl that busted her. The girl went up to the cashier and tried to buy some cigarettes. My fiancee, rushed up to the cashier and said: "Don't sell it to her she's undercover." For that little move she nearly went to jail for interfering with police business. I would think it would be even more so on the federal level. I would think telling a crowd there were FBI agents among you would be interfering with a federal investigation. Just my opinion. SoCrates

Think of the present Way people as being like fish: a fish isn't aware of the medium its swimming in. And in all the purges why didn't they get rid of the real dangers like scammers? The same reason sharks don't eat lawyers: professional courtesy. SoCates

My thoughts exactly. What's the ministry's stake in this? It must be something as most of the believers in CO are abandoning the ministry. SoCrates

Check the Adam Hirschfeld thread. I posted info on Hirschfeld, his company and victims stories. SoCrates

Some more info on Adam Hirschfeld (for those interested) Linked In info Public Awareness site (has pic of Hirschfeld) Info About Company Hirschfeld Owned (unverified links removed by Modgellan) Victims tell their stories SoCrates

Chockful makes mention of it in the Adam Hirschfeld thread. SoCrates

Thereby telling you where the safe harbor was. The safe harbor was for the inner circle. Even to this day, its still a safe harbor, because some will defend and excuse any antisocial behavior 25 hours a day. SoCrates

Did Saint Vic know what he was doing? I'd say yes. He manage to tell everybody outside the inner circle to keep their pants zipped and their wick dry. This tells me he knew right from wrong. Yet, he was unremorseful. Of all the people he hurt, all the women he raped, is there one story where he tried to make things right? So where does this idea of forgiveness come from. Forgiveness goes to people who are remorseful and repentant. Saint Vic was neither. If you read the POOP paper, he was ready to fix the whole thing and start anew. Defiant until the day he died. Like I said, the easiest way to see what Saint Vic teached is to look at LCM. LCM owes everything he is to Saint Vic. Saint Vic taught him everything he knows. If Saint Vic taught da verd, LCM would be manifesting fruits of the spirit rather than works of the flesh. Rather than constantly ice skating uphill, which is what your doing when you defend Saint Vic, I would encourage you to ferret out the truth and figure out who your defending. SoCrates

No more proof than you? I do believe that's what I ment when I said my version had the same validity as your version. And who says I believe his motorcoach had bottles strewn around? I don't know if his motorcoach was strewn with dead soldiers. I do however know many drunks have a habit of hiding bottles around the house. Do I believe Werewolf was a lying, alcoholic who couldn't keep his pen out of the ministry inkwell? Yes, but I've read many of the post on this site. Oddly enough, they're different, but the same. Werewolf always drinks Drambuie, that's why I believe the woman writing the post. Now had she said he was drunk on Jack Daniels or Boones Farm, I would have been asking why the anomaly. But as it is, even her story fits into the overall Werewolf narrative. The facts in my rebuttle (as put in other post): Werewolf did claim to create fast food Werewold was paranoid about the FBI (that little tidbit came from you) Werewold did like some Drambuie slipped in his coffee Werewolf used his motorcoach as a place for his "affairs" One post I read said Saint Vic was to do a phone teaching. His speech was so slurred. after the he hung up, the twig discussed Saint Vic's state of health As I said, you should read some of the other posts on this site, you'll get a more accurate view of what a monster Werewolf was. Face it, dude, all these people aren't lying. SoCrates

And that's the best you can do? Sad really. And how are you so sure there weren't dead soldiers (definition) strewn all over the motorcoach? Call it what you like, its just as valid as what you presented. SoCrates

No, I'm not in his mind, but then what's the verse in proverbs about the mouth producing whats in the heart. Your actions reflect your inner nature. With this unserstanding, why was the ministry created? To move the word? I doubt that. What was the emphasis put on in the ministry? Jesus Christ or money? Seems to me if the emphasis was on moving the word, PFAL would have been free. Also, if the emphasis was on moving the word, ABS would have been voluntery. There wouldn't have been no push to milk believers of their 10%, they would have been so blessed they would have gladly given it to the ministry. Also, if the word was the purpose for the ministry, you wouldn't have an inner circle living in the lap of luxury while the people supporting it are working minimum wage jobs to just eek by. Sorry, there's a major difference between Saint Vic and me. I would never intentional hurt another human being. If by chance I accidently injure another human being, I feel remorseful for it and try to learn from the error so it doesn't happen again. This is what I do about minor day to day injuries. Nonetheless, the atrocities Saint Vic commited. SoCrates

My guess is that that's the way insecure people assert authority. By crushing some people, they make others glad they weren't in that group. Re-enforcing their authority and righteousness to the untouched group. SoCrates

Most of your post is speculation: You weren't there. You don't know what she saw, smelled, or heard to reach her conclusion. So, in the spirit of speculation, let's look at an equally valid version: [Witness testifies that she realized Saint Vic was the perpetrator of wrong doctrines and she confronted him at their next meeting in the motorcoach. She testified he was too drunk to take her confrontation on the word seriously.] Attorney: How do you know he was drunk? Witness: Well, for one think, when he's drunk he makes outrageous claims: like he invented fast food or the FBI was following him. Attorney: He made that kind of claim? Witness: (nodding) He said he wrote the companion bible. Attorney: Were there any other indications he was inebriated? Witness: Yes, his S's slurred. At first I thought he was sick, but then he started pawing me. Because he couldn't keep his hands off me, he chased me, stumbling around. When he finally settled down he swayed back and forth, his face was flushed and his eyes red. His breath smelled like candy cigarettes. He was drunk on his drink of choice, Drambuie, again. Attorney: Drink of choice? Again? Witness: Yes, he was known to slip some in his coffee when he was teaching. Attorney: Did you see this? Witness: Many times. Attorney: Did others see this? Witness: Too many to count. Attorney: And could you tell the difference, in this case, between Drambuie and, say, Grand Marnier, just from smelling his breath? Witness: Yes, especially when he's holding a bottle saying Drambuie on the label. Attorney: Was that all. Witness: No, sir. There were several empty bottles, saying Drambuie, strewn all over the motorcoach. When I finally got him to settle down and discuss the word, he downed several bottles in the course of our discussion. He even offered me one. Attorney: No more questions for this witness. Judge: Witness may step down. _________________________________________________ Again, to paraphrase the Tick: And, isn't reality really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you speculate, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit. SoCrates

In the matter of morals: A persons first and foremost question is always: do I want to live? Most times the answer is yes. Well, once you decide you want to live you have to decide what type of life do you want to live. For this you need morals. Now the next obvious step is: where do I get my morals from? Jerry Springer? McDonald's? Karl Marx? the Koran? Once you've decided your source of morals, you have to interpret them. Thou shall not kill, but what about war? What about abortion? What about that guy that's trying to hurt your family? Honesty's the best policy, but what about that quarter left in the pay phone? What about that extra candy bar you get from the vending machine? What if somebody sends you a check for more than you were supposed to get? What if the cashier gives you too much change? This is what I believe lies at the source of the confusion here: diserning between actual morals and interpretation of morals. Actual morals come from whatever spiritual guide you choose: Jerry Springer or the Bible. Interpretation of morals, however, are man made. An example that comes to mind: God said no work on the Sabbarth day. Yet the new testement often refers to a Sabbath days journey. This was because the Jews took the moral (no work on the Sabbath) and interpreted the word work into how far you could travel (a Sabbath Days journey). Some people are a little firmer than others with their morals. You won't walk up to a muslim and tell him to loosen up, nor would you say they're being morally superior. Their morals structure just makes them more rigid. But then we turn to Saint Vic's demented circus. He preached black and white morals (Your for God or your against God; the word, the word and nothing but the word), while being not having any morals himself. And thereby lies the definition of moral superiority: don't do as I do. do as I say. He told everyone else sex outside of marrage was wrong, meanwhile his motorcoach had a revolving door. He told everyone else the word was the end all and be all, and all he really cared about was money. Now, if your in a position of authority, you should set an example. People are looking to you for guidance. You want an example: If Werewolf had been the spiritual heavy he claimed do you think LCM would have turned out the way he did? I'll lay odds he would have been a whole different person, because the things he would have been taught would have been fruits of the spirit and not works of the flesh. SoCrates

(source) Here's one eyewitness. I'm sure there are more. SoCrates

Thank you for proving my point. The members of St. Vic's inner circle apparently thought they were morally superior because they chose what was right and what was wrong. When you get the benefit of defining the game, you can always draw the lines in your favor. This is the very essense of moral superiority: drawing the lines in your faveor, so your always right and everyone else is always wrong. Gee, that even sounds a little like Saint Vic, doesn't it? SoCrates

I agree with, Waysider, just how do you know this? Rather than being on site, the FBI usually uses paid informants (Source)(Source) So if it were an informant, it be unlikely they'd tell you. If they were undercover, it be unlikely they'd do anything to draw attenton to themselves. If they were looking for illegal firearms, they're not going to roll up to the front gate and flash their badges. So where did the info come from. I'll take Saint Vic's paranoia for $500, Alex. SoCrates

(source) Could this be the source of all the rationalizing and accusations of moral superiority that have been leveled at some in this thread? When you set yourself up to decide right and wrong--well, it doesn't get much more morally superior than that. Hint: Read the whole article. It's fill of morally superior people-- SoCrates

You guessed 'er, Chester. Give the man a cheroot. Your up. SoCrates