Catcup

There is no implication there, Vertical. This is where you are putting words in his mouth. We do not imply you MUST FORGIVE! He is asking people to consider what peace forgiveness might bring a person. Put that together with what I posted on our position, and you will have our views on forgiveness. Forgiveness does nothing for either party if legislated. Also, healing comes in different ways and different times to different people. Asking a person to consider something is a far cry from legislating or demanding or condemning. Those things are NOT coming from me or from Geek. Those just might be echoes of TWI rambling around in your brain. They did not originate from us. If a person so CHOOSES to forgive a person, there are benefits to both. If a person so CHOOSES NOT to forgive, there may well be a damn good reason. Please refer to my first post and the choices I believe I have (note I-- I do not say YOU. I give my opinion for ME) in forgiveness. They are varied. And I do not state that any of them or all of them or none of them or any choice you may make is either right or wrong. --Except when your choice begins to hurt innocent people.

Vertical Limit-- Rascal made this false accusation against Geek and misrepresented his intent on this thread: "Was it not Geek who was telling me whom *I* am to forgive?" As for your claim, as far as I can tell, neither Geek nor I claim to have "cornered the market" on forgiveness. Why do you insinuate we think we have? And if you want to know why Geek asked these questions on forgiveness, go back and read his original post. He tells you right then and there WHY HE ASKED.

Here are my two original posts for those of you who find huge threads daunting-- I know I do sometimes: Rascal: "Geek, I gotta ask you, and anybody else shaking their finger in our collective faces about forgiveness...." I think any reasonable and rational person reading Geek's original post here would agree that this is not the tone with which Geek wrote his question. This is a question each person can answer for himself, between him or herself and God. For myself, I believe the offender (if still alive) needs to apologize before I choose to extend my forgiveness to him, plain and simple. Just because I choose not to forgive a person who has not asked for it, does not mean I must carry a burden because of it. I can choose to hold an offender responsible for his actions while NOT carrying bitterness and strife in my heart. The offender carries the burden. He or she must live with what they have done. And in the case of a sociopath who has no conscience, don't fool yourself into thinking they suffer no consequences. They do. It manifests itself as deficits in many other areas of their lives. I can, if I so choose, forgive a person who has NOT asked for it. By the way, isn't that what God did for us? Ephesians says in chapter two that God extended his love toward us WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS. We can of free will choose to be like Him and do the same. While I believe I can extend forgiveness to a person for his or her trespasses against me, I do not believe I have the authority to excuse them for trespasses they have made against others. That is between the offender and the other person. However, a person CAN choose, to not only not forgive, but to withold forgiveness AND carry such a burden of bitterness and hatred that it perverts their own understanding and viewpoint. That is the case where the acid of hatred hurts the holder as much as whomever they pour it out upon. I have seen that, and it is sad. The person's viewpoint is so distorted and poisoned, they swing out blindly at anything that appears that it MIGHT threaten them-- and sometimes hurt innocent people. That is the person who needs to take a step back and consider how to hold the offender responsible for heinous deeds that hurt them, and also seek help for the sting of pain that still remains from the damage done by the offender. Unfair as it is to be injured by an unrepentant party, recovery from this pain takes some work. On the part of the person who is hurt. And it takes time. It takes time for the person to regather their strength, sort things out, gain some perspective, and repeatedly take it to God until they are healed. I don't think you can demand a horribly injured person to extend complete forgiveness immediately to one who refuses to believe they have done anything wrong. But I do think loving a person when they are the most unlovable, and forgiving a person when they are the most unforgivable, can be the most Godly act a person can make in their own heart between themselves and God and one of the most Christlike compassionate gestures one person can make toward another human being. And I believe it is POSSIBLE to do that AND STILL HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. But one must beware that bitterness does not taint their perspective toward others. I have seen that happen and it ain't purty, folks. Catcup Claims to live here I believe I have the authority to forgive someone who has wronged me-- specifically for the things they have done to ME. I do not believe though, that I have the authority to absolve anyone for sins they have committed against others. That is between the offender, the person they offended, and God. So if I choose to forgive someone for what they did to me, how is it anyone elses business to decide that I have whitewashed an issue? The issue is between myself and the other person, and God. However, if I decide I have the authority to excuse someone for the sins they committed against another person, I insert myself in something that is none of my business, and assign myself authority that is God's alone.

Once again I would like to thank those people who actually read Geek's post and gave an honest response to an honest question. I am amazed at the folks who jump on bandwagons here, though, without really understanding the totality of the original question, which was, "Are we ready for a little forgiveness?" And that question was set in a specific context, from which some have removed it and decided that forgiveness is being legislated, which it is not. My posts afterward outline how we both view forgiveness. Some of you have read them THOROUGHLY. Others of you have NOT, and have jumped on the bandwagon of: You're telling me that I must forgive You're telling me who to forgive You're telling me when to forgive You're telling me I have to forgive TWI You're telling me if I don't forgive, I am wrong If I don't forgive, you are condemning me You're trying to guilt me into forgiveness You support giving blanket forgiveness to VPW & TWI and I've finally found the support I've always wanted on this site-- HOORAY! None of the above positions accurately reflect what either Geek or I said OR intend. Geek simply posed a question-- several of them actually, in a specific context, from which they should NOT be removed. I answered his question speaking for myself, not for you anyone else-- but my answers on this subject reflect my views as well as Geek's. Rascal: "Geek, I gotta ask you, and anybody else shaking their finger in our collective faces about forgiveness...." When Rascal wrote this, neither Geek nor any other poster on this thread had adopted the attitude she accused him of. She also has accused Geek of telling her who to forgive: "Was it not Geek who was telling me whom *I* am to forgive?" She has yet to prove he did that or retract that accusation. I think this attitude and false accusation breeds the kind of agression that can and does hurt innocent people. Song wants to know my position when I have already stated it in my first two posts on this thread. He also missed the primary question at the end of Geek's first post. Others question whether we have tied forgiveness to being right or wrong. If you read my original two posts you will see that is not the case. And for me, yes, the answer to Geek's question of whether we are ready for forgiveness, is painfully obvious. Some people are, some people aren't-- that's neither good nor bad. But-- some people are so touchy when you even approach the subject of forgiveness that they cannot be reasoned with in a rational way, assume things that are untrue, and begin accusing us of falsehoods by twisting our words and taking them out of context. We have all had enough false accusations from people in TWI to last a lifetime. We don't need them here.

I think the answer to Geek's original question is painfully obvious.

Rascal, I will repeat this: I think emotion is beginning to cloud the issue when Geek is accused of wagging his finger and telling you who to forgive. And you grouped him in with those you accused of wagging their fingers, and yes, you claimed he was telling you who to forgive. PROVE IT. HE DID NO SUCH THING. And things Geek and I have said have been taken out of context by people on either side of our stand to support their own causes. Some of you shouldn't think for a NY second that we support your views regarding VPW et al and their sins, in any way, shape, or form. And others of you need to divorce yourself from the emotion, calm down, and go read what was originally written by BOTH of us. Both extreme sides are doing what TWI LOVES TO DO: You're twisting our words. For those of you who understood a simple question and gave it a simple answer, thank you.

I think emotion is beginning to cloud the issue when Geek is accused of wagging his finger and telling you who to forgive. He did none of that. Now, I really gotta go.

Now, I HAVE TO GET BACK TO WORK!

No Rascal, Geek didn't tell you who to forgive. Go read his original post without all the emotion you are displaying here. He asked a simple, honest question. And my response above is to those who feel that because I have forgiven someone they have NOT forgiven, that I have somehow "whitewashed" the issue. Don Wierwille was a "ferinstance"-- didn't mean to single rascal out on this one. I can forgive someone who has offended me, while still holding them accountable for what they did to you. Capiche?

Garth, go read my original posts and you will see my position. I do not ABSOLVE these people for what they have done to anyone else. If I choose to forgive them for what they did to me, I can do so and STILL hold them responsible for their actions. AND I do not have the authority to forgive them for what they did to you. That's between you and them and God Nor do I have the authority to LEGISLATE what you decide to do about your issues with them. I do NOT EXCUSE any of these people for what they did to you. Some of you have not read my original posts, nor do you remember my positions which have not changed since WD.

Is it insidious and evil that I have forgiven Don Wierwille for the sin he committed against me? He asked for my forgiveness and I gave it to him. By the way he is the ONLY trustee to have apologized to me. And yes, I forgave him. To do so, in your eyes, is insidious and evil? I think to suggest if I decide to forgive someone is evil, I would tell you that the fact I forgave them is none of your business. Do I forgive Don Wierwille for sins he committed against other people? No, I don't have that authority. Have I forgiven his father for what he did to me and my sister and my family? That is something I am working out between me and God. Do I forgive him for what he did to others? I don't have that authority. And I hold him accountable and responsible. Don Wierwille, and his father, and those who behaved likewise, are STILL RESPONSIBLE for what they did to others, and accountable to those people and accountable to GOD. I CANNOT EXCUSE THEIR BEHAVIOR. Bur for you to insert yourself into WHOM I forgive is none of your business. For me to insert myself into who you forgive, I do not have the authority.

I am sorry you are offended, rascal. But to refute the sacrifice of God's son, and the blood that he spilled to cleanse you of your sins while you were at enmity with God just might be offensive to God. Tell me now, is your salvation of works or of grace? My bible reads that I was at enmity with God, and while in that state, He sacrificed His only begotten Son in order that I might be cleansed and forgiven. How that offends you, I know not. How you can refute that God extended this grace to you in an unclean state, I know not. Otherwise, we don't need a Savior. Now, I still stand by my original posts. You might find my position agrees with you on some points if you would read it. Geek plans on answering the questions you posed to him and will do it when he has a chance. You pose good questions and they will get good answers. I will allow him to answer those questions, because I don't have time to spend all day digging the answers up and posting them on this site like I did one day this week already. Both of us went out and got a life after we left TWI, and have obligations outside this site that requrire our attention in order to make a living and enjoy the life we went out and got.

Rascal you ignore the sacrifice of God's only begotten Son. Forgiveness was yours the moment he laid down his life for you... before you were even born. It was not granted you because of any action on your part. You accepted Jesus as your Savior. You accepted him as your Saviour because you were helpless to save yourself. Forgiveness came with it because you ACCEPTED IT. Not because of anything done by you at all. That is why salvation and the forgiveness that came with it is of grace and not of works, lest you boast.

It was a gift then. And it is a gift now, if we choose to bestow it upon an unworthy person, as was done for us. But that is a choice which CANNOT BE LEGISLATED.

Rascal: Forgiveness was yours before you even asked... as the first drop of his blood hit the dust of Golgotha's soil.

Those questions were posed to Geek, so I will let him answer them. Any thoughts on Ephesians chapter two and how God loved us and sent his only begotten Son to die for our sins while we were dead in trespasses and sins? God extended his forgiveness toward us even when we were at enmity with Him. Actually I'll let you mull that over with God. Your issues with those who have offended you and your decision how to approach it, is between you and God. How it spills over onto your brothers and sisters, though, is not. However, I still stand by my original posts. While not everyone can get there immediately, I believe it is a worthy goal.

I believe I have the authority to forgive someone who has wronged me-- specifically for the things they have done to ME. I do not believe though, that I have the authority to absolve anyone for sins they have committed against others. That is between the offender, the person they offended, and God. So if I choose to forgive someone for what they did to me, how is it anyone elses business to decide that I have whitewashed an issue? The issue is between myself and the other person, and God. However, if I decide I have the authority to excuse someone for the sins they committed against another person, I insert myself in something that is none of my business, and assign myself authority that is God's alone.

Rascal: "Geek, I gotta ask you, and anybody else shaking their finger in our collective faces about forgiveness...." I think any reasonable and rational person reading Geek's original post here would agree that this is not the tone with which Geek wrote his question. This is a question each person can answer for himself, between him or herself and God. For myself, I believe the offender (if still alive) needs to apologize before I choose to extend my forgiveness to him, plain and simple. Just because I choose not to forgive a person who has not asked for it, does not mean I must carry a burden because of it. I can choose to hold an offender responsible for his actions while NOT carrying bitterness and strife in my heart. The offender carries the burden. He or she must live with what they have done. And in the case of a sociopath who has no conscience, don't fool yourself into thinking they suffer no consequences. They do. It manifests itself as deficits in many other areas of their lives. I can, if I so choose, forgive a person who has NOT asked for it. By the way, isn't that what God did for us? Ephesians says in chapter two that God extended his love toward us WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS. We can of free will choose to be like Him and do the same. While I believe I can extend forgiveness to a person for his or her trespasses against me, I do not believe I have the authority to excuse them for trespasses they have made against others. That is between the offender and the other person. However, a person CAN choose, to not only not forgive, but to withold forgiveness AND carry such a burden of bitterness and hatred that it perverts their own understanding and viewpoint. That is the case where the acid of hatred hurts the holder as much as whomever they pour it out upon. I have seen that, and it is sad. The person's viewpoint is so distorted and poisoned, they swing out blindly at anything that appears that it MIGHT threaten them-- and sometimes hurt innocent people. That is the person who needs to take a step back and consider how to hold the offender responsible for heinous deeds that hurt them, and also seek help for the sting of pain that still remains from the damage done by the offender. Unfair as it is to be injured by an unrepentant party, recovery from this pain takes some work. On the part of the person who is hurt. And it takes time. It takes time for the person to regather their strength, sort things out, gain some perspective, and repeatedly take it to God until they are healed. I don't think you can demand a horribly injured person to extend complete forgiveness immediately to one who refuses to believe they have done anything wrong. But I do think loving a person when they are the most unlovable, and forgiving a person when they are the most unforgivable, can be the most Godly act a person can make in their own heart between themselves and God and one of the most Christlike compassionate gestures one person can make toward another human being. And I believe it is POSSIBLE to do that AND STILL HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. But one must beware that bitterness does not taint their perspective toward others. I have seen that happen and it ain't purty, folks.

P.S. No, I don't mind "doing research" for people who don't have the means at their disposal. I apologize for sounding arrogant. I do though, get frustrated at people who have the facts at their fingertips, but are too lazy or unconcerned with the truth to bother to check them. It's easier for them to spin in the direction their anger takes them regardless of who they hurt, than to take the time to check their facts. It ticks me off that I can take hours or even a whole day to check my facts to make sure I have them right, and get jumped for missing one thing, and someone else posts off the edge of his rage without thinking, hurting innocent people, and goes not only unchallenged, but cheered. It happens here, folks, it does. It's frustrating. And then we come off looking to innies like that documentary claiming there were missles in the barn silo.

Speculation is fine if you CALL it speculation. There is room for it if you want to be honest about what it is. But exaggerating and claiming something to be fact which can be proved otherwise, does exactly what you said: It strenthens resolve to stay in TWI. And people continue to be hurt in that organization. I said before that there are so very many more OBVIOUS exaggerations VPW and TWI made like the ones you just listed, that it is better to dwell on the obvious ones. Hell, anybody in that two bit organization damn well knows that one person in a foreign country makes them a country coordinator and gives TWI the "prestige" of being an "International ministry." And they cannot, between themselves and God, believe it is honest. THAT is the stuff to hammer. They have to KNOW BEFORE GOD that it's a misrepresentation of the facts, and they are LIARS to propound it to the world. Plagiarism and doctrinal error can be PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt. "Line by line and word by word" as the old codger used to say. Raf and others have done the legwork proving that with THEIR OWN PUBLICATIONS (gasp!-- I thought that would taint his research to use them!) and those VPW "borrowed" from... Those are the kinds of things that can shake innies into finally thinking for themselves. Your first hand testimonies about the abuse that happened TO YOU can speak to those still in who are having second thoughts about how they are being treated. We don't HAVE to speculate when there is so much to be absolutely sure of and prove with evidence. Lets just please do that and not give reason for these poor trapped people to stay in TWI because we can't be trusted to tell the truth.

I in no way disparage Pawtucket for the wonderful job he does in maintaining this website. Only Pawtucket knows how much it takes out of his life to keep up this site, and it's a far piece more than anyone on here can begin to understand. P.A. did not work a full time job. WD WAS his full time job. Pawtucket works a full time job AND has both the pleasure and headaches of watching over the cafe. But he simply cannot do it like P.A. And that yes, makes the standards different. How? On WayDale, P.A. was responsible for keeping up the standard. ON GSC, you and I are largely responsible for it. With WD, P.A. was there to step in and ON people who exaggerated or overstepped their bounds. Pawtucket, after posting instructions on the front of the website and doing his best with moderators, must leave it up to the individual poster to monitor his own behavior for the most part. The integrity and credibility of this site is mostly up to the integrity and credibility of each poster. Pawtucket is leaving it up to US to toe the line. Take personal responsibility. Many people do. Unfortunately, those who do not, take away from the credibility on this site. And that ends up HURTING PEOPLE whether you believe it or not. When people who are still in see exaggerations that they can truthfully identify as exaggerations on this site, it takes away from the credibility of the true incidents shared here by honest and careful posters, and you frankly are not believed. Too much $hit mixed in with the brownies, folks. For instance, I remember hearing reports in the media back in the mid-seventies that VPW was screwing hoards of women in the Way Corps. However, that same source ALSO made the outrageous claim that the Wierwille silo held a missle and that the barn housed tanks and ammunition because, they claimed, we were a paramilitary organization. I had been in the Wierwille barn, and seen the silo. There was no missle in the silo and the only thing in the barn besides give-away was an old Ford tractor. I was also in The Way Corps and Dr. Wierwille had not made any advances towards me. So guess who I believed? Why? Too much dog $hit in the brownies, folks. IT WORKS BOTH WAYS.

Thanks, Rascal, I respect you too. But I gave you information off of photographed documents: Actual magazines and legal documents filed with the State of Ohio. All you have after that is speculation, which can be colored by your opinions and of course your experiences. And emotions not held in check can skew the facts as well. My opinion of VPW is well documented on this site and on WayDale, and with attorneys for PXXL AXXXN and Baker and Hostetler et al. I maintain that the best way to be credible to a new person who is considering whether or not to get involved in TWI is to be as accurate as I know how to be. to not let my emotions get in the way of the facts. As upsetting as my experiences were, I have the ability to set them aside and look at "just the facts, ma'am." --And that is important at times in order to be objective-- something we were not allowed to be in TWI. I cannot speak for your personal experience, but I can certainly speak for mine, AND I HAVE, both here and to legal counsel. And legal counsel could not refute my testimony because I testified to Baker and Hostetler et al what I personally knew first hand, and to what could actually be documented. What I have seen on this site lately and more commonly could be shot down in a court of law, very easily. And it hurts your credibility. Pardon me for being from the "old school" on WayDale where what we said was obviously held to a much higher standard. But then again, the site was fortunate to be monitored nearly 24 hrs a day by someone with a legal stake in the matter, and that was his full time job. This site is not, cannot be, and does not try to hold people to the same standard P.A. did. Here, it is more up to the individual to restrain themselves and be as objective and truthful as they can be without constant reminders to people of the legal ramifications of exaggeration. Unfortunately, there are people here who do exaggerate, don't double check their facts, and don't apologize when caught in it. Perhaps that's why I don't fit in here. I am used to a different, higher standard. That's all I've got to say. You all can take it or leave it. I've got things to do besides your research for you.

I'm sure he knows he's doing the right thing by his Mom..... but fat chance on the latter.... he's having too much fun looking down his nose at those of us who "no longer stand with the ministry." See, he's got to have SOMEBODY to look down on, because since being busted back to no leadership position, he's now as low as you can go in the organization without being booted out. It's his only way to feel righteous and spiritual about what he is doing.

VPW experienced a lot of disappointment in denominational religion while pastoring his church. For the details, check The Way Living With Love and Born Again to Serve, where the reasons for this are discussed extensively. But I do see where the argument starts in the difference between when VPW marked what he felt was the beginning of his personal ministry (Chimes Hour Youth Caravan, October 3, 1942) and the incorporation of The Way. However, the words "The Way" were linked very early to Chimes Hour Youth Caravan, long before The Way itself was incorporated. This is where the confusion enters. "The Way" was a title VPW used in association with his personal ministry even while working for his denomination. On page 63 of Dotsie’s book there is a photograph of an old Chimes Hour Young People's Publication (forerunner of the Way rag), and at the top of the page it plainly says in large print, "The Way Chimes Hour Young People's Publication". This publication began in 1947. Chimes Hour Youth Caravan itself began as stated earlier on October 3, 1942. Just five short successful years later, Articles of Incorporation for The Chimes Hour Youth Caravan are dated October 30, 1947, no. 204759 with the Ohio secretary of state. So, the term “The Way” can be documented as associated in print with VPW’s ministry at least as early as 1947. On July 24 to 17, 1952, Wierwille planned a weekend camp at a campground at Grand Lake St. Mary’s Ohio in celebration of the tenth anniversary year. Speakers at the celebration: Tom Lasher, a chemist who had been healed from terrible burns received in an explosion who imparted to the hearers the importance of physical touch. Jeff Rogers of the Race Relations Department of the Evangelical and Reformed denomination, who taught on “Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself” Dr. Stuart Hydanus, a professor of astronomy and archaeology whom VPW had met at Pikes Peak Seminary, whose specialty was proving the detailed accuracy of the Bible through astronomy and archaeology. BTW, since VPW still held pastorate at this time with his denomination, we can only assume they accepted his doctorate from Pikes Peak Seminary. June 12, 1955, change in articles of incorporation for Chimes Hour Youth Caravan: On pages 110 and 111 of Born Again to Serve are the details and copy of the Resolution of Amendment Articles of Incorporation to Change Name of Corporation and to Amend It’s Purpose Clause. This action changing the name of Victor Paul Wierwille’s ministry officially from Chimes Hour Youth Caravan to The Way, Inc. on June 12, 1955. The ministry itself did not change. It changed the name to include only “The Way” which title had been blended with the Youth Caravan in practice, and had become more and more preferred. The title “The Way” was associated with this ministry long before the name officially changed. It is a continuation of the same ministry that began in 1942 with the radio broadcast. The third article to this resolution continues the ministry’s purpose as, “The purpose or purposes for which said corporation is formed are: For the furtherance of the gospel of Jesus Christ by radio, or by personal appearance.” This is what he was already doing. To this was added another entire paragraph including television (the emerging technology at the time), the printed page, and all things incident thereto…” etc. etc. November 1955: The Wierwille family (minus JP) travel to India to inspect the foreign missions of the Evangelical Reformed church. When the first international PFAL class was run in 1957, The Way still considered itself part of the Evangelical Reformed Church-- as evidenced by the sign over the heads of the class members who posed for a pic back then (p.214 of Dotsie's book). So there was a “blending” of VPW’s personal ministry of “The Way” with Wierwille’s The Chimes Hour Youth Caravan and throughout his relationship with Evangelical and Reformed church. Dotsie says it was in August of 1957 that VPW submitted his letter of resignation from St. Peters Church to "go into the full-time research, teaching and fellowship ministry of The Way as of December 1957.” A copy of this letter is in Born Again to Serve. Dotsie adds, “Of course, there was also a pressured undercurrent from the hierarchy of the denomination to do so since the publishing of The Dilemma of Foreign Missions in India." This publication outlined VPW's disappointment at the condition of the missions of his denomination in India when he visited them, and was the final nail in the coffin of his relationship with organized religion and his denomination. He basically blew the whistle on how poorly the Indians were being treated by the denomination, which made his church rather uncomfortable. I have a copy of this book myself, and it is rather scathing towards the denomination. But he was right on the money calling them racist imperialists. So you can see that with just a little effort looking things up in two publications, that the term “The Way” has a very early association with Chimes Hour Youth Caravan, and that the ministry in fact had a 10 year celebration in 1952. I do not deny the damage this man eventually did to untold numbers of people. But it behooves us to be as accurate as possible if we are going to accuse someone of something. Just ask Radar and those of us who were subject to deposition by TWI’s attorneys.

Oh, and as far as the leasing vs. buying controversy... According to Mark Wallace, holy representative of The Only Ministry in The World With The Rightly Divided Word... Leasing a HOUSE is not a debt. Leasing a CAR IS debt. When I asked him what was the difference, because if you broke either lease you were liable for money prescribed in the contract, all I got was a bunch of hostility, steam, smoke, and mirrors.