WordWolf

Nathan_Jr: “Don't the epistles provide criteria for a man of god? Haven't we already shown victor doesn't meet those criteria?” Mike: "The epistles do not tell us how God picks people for super special jobs, like listen to what God said he should trust and not trust in other authors and researchers. That super special 1942 job also entailed teaching it, distributing it and listening to God’s guidance in that as well. He got the job done, mostly, by his retirement in 1982. ============================= It's rather silly to cling so doggedly to what was so thoroughly disproven. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24980-concerning-the-failure-of-the-1942-promise/ There was no special nor super special 1942 job. The only reason to think there was, is the testimony of a proven liar and proven fraud. It is not sound thinking to trust the words of a proven liar. It is not sound thinking to trust the genuine work of a known fraud. It is not sound thinking to give credibility to someone who has a history of lying, defrauding, and so on. They've already squandered "the benefit of the doubt."

I'm sorry for your loss. Our furry friends and our furry family have shorter lives, and often leave ours much too soon for our tastes. (Also true for many humans, but moreso for our fuzzy family.) Tuxedo had a happy home, and knew she was loved and cared for. If there's anything else to offer, I don't know about it. She will be missed like we miss so many of our friends.

That about sums it up. I could get into how his opinion doesn't change anything. I could get into how we saw books that have proper crediting do NOT distract from the text ("Babylon Mystery Religion" had end-notes that were legally and morally correct, and did NOT distract- in fact, it's easy to read the book and not notice they're there.) I could get into how vpw himself had a double-standard, where he helped himself to everyone else's books without proper legal and moral credit (in the majority of cases, he put a few in to cover his tracks), and then turned around and put copyright notices on all "his" books. Ultimately, it's pointless. The sensible don't need me to point it out, and the other type would agree no matter how logical it is.

Since someone asked, EW Bullinger's "Giver and His Gifts" is a lot easier to find under the title "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit."

We got plenty of STORIES about how all sorts of things happened on the other side of the world, in front of people we couldn't speak to and ask. When it came to day-to-day in twi, we should have been tripping over instances all the time of miraculous things happening. There should have been a "how to" in the Advanced class, with people taught live and seeing things happening right there. We should have been hearing how people joined twi and traveled to hq so that vpw could deliver miraculous healing. We had one story like that- but it was one where somebody went in their wheelchair, got to vpw face-to-face, and no healing was even ATTEMPTED. Instead, we got anecdotes about good parking spaces. "Kojacking" in place of miracles is a miserable failure, and a lousy counterfeit. I also won't buy "I once heard from someone that they knew someone who once saw...." If vpw was legit and the miracles were legit, there would have been plenty of public miracles every ROA and they would have been common occurrences on grounds for people who lived and worked there.

It's that simple. And if your premise is faulty, everything that proceeds from it is faulty.

Hi. Since some of you have never read the archives, I'm reposting this out of them for your convenience. It's called "The Integrity of Your Word", and I didn't write it. http://web.archive.org/web/20030220025532/http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/plagiarism-wierwille.htm It hardly seems like a big deal. Borrow a phrase here or a sentence there. As long as your goal is to make God’s Word known, what’s the problem? Is there a copyright on the Bible? Some of the typical excuses for plagiarism center on the thought that no one is really hurt by it, and that everyone borrows thoughts and ideas. The book of Ecclesiastes reveals that there is nothing new under the sun: surely this includes expositions on reading and understanding the Bible, doesn’t it? Yet it’s fairly easy to illustrate that there is something fundamentally wrong with plagiarism. Suppose, for argument’s sake, that you picked up a book tomorrow at Barnes & Noble. The book cover reads, The Ability to Live Abundantly, and the author’s name is Rafael Olmeda. As you open the book, you notice that the first chapter quotes John 10:10. Afterward, it says, “This verse literally change my life. In my years in the Christian ministry, I’ve never manifested an abundant life. It seemed unbelievers were manifesting a more abundant life than Christians. Yet Jesus Christ said he came that we might have life and that we might have it more abundantly. Why are Christians failing to manifest even an abundant life?” The remainder of the book lays out keys for how to understand the Bible. There’s a chapter on how to receive anything from God, including an anecdote about “fire engine red” curtains. Another chapter is called “The Battle of the Senses.” Anyone who’s had any experience with The Way International would recognize that “my” book was little more than a retyping of Victor Paul Wierwille’s Power For Abundant Living. If I were to take that book, slap a new title on it, change a few words around so that the quotes are not exact, could I really call myself an author (especially if I fail to give Wierwille credit for his work)? Could I, in good conscience, sell my book and take the profits? Would you not call me on it? Victor Paul Wierwille was a plagiarist. He took the research of other men and passed it off as his own. He took their words and put his name on them. The most notable example of this is Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. To a lesser extent, he clearly borrowed liberally from E.W. Bullinger’s How to Enjoy the Bible in his book and class Power For Abundant Living. His plagiarism has been well documented, and anyone who doubts it is referred to John Juedes’ Web site (http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stiles.htm), in which he presents compelling evidence to back up the accusation. This article’s goal is not to prove that Wierwille was a plagiarist. We already feel others have provided that proof. This article is more concerned with the implications of Wierwille’s plagiarism as it relates to his ministry and his memory. First, let’s define our terms and look at some examples of what is and what is not plagiarism. To plagiarize, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is to take and use (the thoughts, writings … of another person) as one’s own. It’s a fairly straightforward definition, and it’s usually easy to detect. Sometimes, like the word “obscenity,” it’s not easy to define an actual infraction. Quoting from a published work without identifying it as a quote or giving credit to the source of the quote is plagiarism. Taking a previously published paragraph and changing a few words but retaining the basic structure and meaning of the original paragraph, without crediting the source, is plagiarism. Copying the structure of a book, using the same references in the same order, but changing a few sentences to account for theological differences, without crediting the source, is plagiarism. Inadvertently writing the same sentence that someone else wrote while researching the same subject is not plagiarism. I’m sure if you look through other published works, you will find sentences eerily similar to some of the sentences I’ve written here. Plagiarism does not merely arise from the similarity of phrases, sentences, paragraphs or chapters. Plagiarism arises from the deliberate attempt to take credit for someone else’s work. There have been examples of “accidental” plagiarism. Authors forget to cite their sources, or don’t recall that something they wrote was not original. I once started writing a novel, and later recognized several clever paragraphs as having originated in an Indiana Jones movie. It was inadvertent, and therefore, not plagiarism. Dumb, but not plagiarism. Paraphrasing or repeating the same well-known adage or expression is not plagiarism. If I were to write an article on “How to Become Born Again,” I would be going over material that has been researched and studied over and over again by countless men and women of God. There can be little doubt that I would use some of the same verses, maybe even in the same order, as someone else. That doesn’t make it plagiarism. What makes it plagiarism is if I take someone else’s work on the subject, retype it with my name on the cover, and submit it to whoever’s publishing it as though I had done the work myself. Here’s an example of repeating a well-known phrase: in one of E.W. Bullinger’s books, he quotes the Biblical statement “the natural man cannot know the things of the spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned” (I’m actually paraphrasing). If Wierwille plagiarizes Bullinger here, is it really plagiarism? Well, yes and no. By itself, it’s not plagiarism, because they’re both just quoting the Bible. Now, if Wierwille is using the quote in the same way Bullinger used it, to make the same point, using the same illustrations, etc, then we might have a stronger case against him. But again, by itself, that hardly seems an infraction. Another “gray area” can be found in the Studies in Abundant Living series. The chapter on “The Counsel of the Lord” in the “Blue Book” borrows quite specifically from the selected writings of E.W. Bullinger. The chapter on “Your Power of Attorney” in the “Green Book” is clearly based on The Wonderful Name of Jesus, by E.W. Kenyon. It was Kenyon, not Wierwille, who first wrote about the concept of a Christian’s “power of attorney.” Likewise, Kenyon was the one who first wrote that Jesus inherited a name, was given a name, and obtained a name. Anyone who reads Kenyon’s booklet and then reads Wierwille’s chapter will see quite clearly that one influenced the other. So why do I call it a “gray area?” I do so primarily because those chapters in Studies in Abundant Living were originally presented as teachings. Admittedly, one should cite one’s sources even while delivering a sermon (the pastor at the mainstream church I attend does this all the time). But it’s not a big deal to read from someone else’s work while teaching God’s Word. The problem comes when those sermons are transcribed and edited for publication. The sources are lost in the notes of the speaker. The “chapter” that is written now contains borrowed information without attribution. In the publishing world, this is unacceptable. In the category of publishing basic evangelical outreach materials, it is acceptable and routine (else writers would end up with absurd quotations like “according to Billy Graham, salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ”). What should Wierwille have done? To be truthful, he should have cited Kenyon and Bullinger and anyone else he used as a source in compiling his teachings. If he did not do it while teaching live, he certainly should have done it when the books were being put together. Is it a big deal that he did not follow this simple practice? In my opinion, no, it’s not a big deal. Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, on the other hand, is a big deal. This was Wierwille’s signature book. Together with Power For Abundant Living, it was the foundation on which all of The Way International’s doctrines were based. Wierwille joked that he had forgotten more about the subject of “holy spirit” than some of his critics would ever know. Apparently one of the things Wierwille forgot was to give credit where credit is due. On that subject, some have noted accurately that Wierwille did indeed talk about J.E. Stiles, B.G. Leonard, Bullinger and numerous other people from whom he learned principles of God’s Word. While this is commendable, it does not absolve plagiarism. In order to avoid a charge of plagiarism, one must give credit in the actual book or article being published. It’s not enough to say to a small group of people, “I learned that from Stiles.” If Receiving the Holy Spirit Today quotes significant portions of Stiles’ writings (and it does), then credit to Stiles must be given within the pages of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. Instead, Wierwille implies that the book was strictly the result of his personal research into the Bible. It was not. He claimed to throw away all his other texts and use the Bible as his only textbook and guide. This was dishonest. It was demonstrably false. It was a lie. Plagiarism is lying. It is lying about the amount of work you put into your written project. When the plagiarist claims to be a uniquely qualified man of God, the lie becomes magnified. Why? Because a minister is, by definition, in a position of trust in the church community. No one expects a minister to be superhuman, but it is not unreasonable to expect honesty and integrity. It is not unreasonable, when you read an article that says “by Rafael Olmeda,” to expect that Rafael Olmeda wrote it. It is not unreasonable, when you read a book that says “by Victor Paul Wierwille,” to expect that Victor Paul Wierwille wrote it. Plagiarism is stealing. In a world where books are published and sold, publishing someone else’s work steals revenue that should have gone to the original writer (or, more accurately, the holder of the original copyright). How many people would have purchased Stiles’ book if they knew it was the original source of much of Wierwille’s book? How many would have purchased Bullinger’s book on the subject? I know, Bullinger is dead: but there’s still a copyright on his work and plagiarizing from him is still stealing from them. Now, Wierwille disagreed with Stiles and Bullinger on a number of issues, so it made sense that he would revise their information rather than just republish. It’s plausible that he would not have gotten permission to quote extensively from their work. There are solutions to those issues. Plagiarism was not an acceptable way to resolve them. Victor Paul Wierwille used other people’s work to prop up his own research ability, his own wisdom and understanding of God’s Word. He used other people’s work to exalt himself as The Teacher, the Man of God, our father in the Word. He did so knowing that the words “by Victor Paul Wierwille” were a lie. So what? That’s an important question. So what? Does it really matter that Wierwille plagiarized? Isn’t it more important in the grand scheme of things that more people have a better understanding of God’s Word as a result of Wierwille’s work? Yes, it is more important that people learn about God. Truth from the pen of a plagiarist is still truth. But plagiarism matters. Plagiarism may not reflect on the accuracy of the information that’s stolen, but it does reflect on the character of the plagiarist. The plagiarist is a liar, a thief, an arrogant, lazy, self-important person who dismisses the hard work of other people and disrespects the intelligence of his readers (by presuming the readers will never learn of the infraction). Receiving the Holy Spirit Today should not be dismissed just because it was the result of plagiarism. There may be other reasons to dismiss it, according to some. But plagiarism is not a valid reason to dismiss the contents. Plagiarism does hurt people. It hurts people by stealing from them. It hurts people by misrepresenting the accomplishments of the plagiarist. The Bible teaches that love does not “puff itself up.” But what is plagiarism if it’s not pretending to do something you did not do? We don’t accept it from high school students. We don’t accept it from college students. We don’t accept it from news reporters, from columnists, from authors. We don’t accept it from historians and researchers. Those are “the world’s” professions. How can we accept a lower standard of integrity from men who profess to stand for God?

What does it matter that it's plagiarized? Part of the whole package we were sold (where we were defrauded) was that this was the full work of some dedicated minister who tried to understand God and serve God the best he could, and the results were the entire package. Moreover, he claimed that- because he was so dedicated- that God Almighty had revealed to him levels of understanding that were unique to him, that nobody else had, and THAT was the entire package we were sold. All of that was a lie, and all of that is provable as lies. Yet, because we trusted- why would a minister of God lie? Why would he be less truthful than us? - we didn't examine things quite so closely. We didn't examine them for errors that weren't that hard to find once one begins looking for them. http://web.archive.org/web/20030220025532/http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/plagiarism-wierwille.htm

It's got to be those 2. But I don't know how most of the clues fit in.

"This series featured neither the first nor the last portrayals of the title characters. The actor who played one title character recently said in today's political climate, he would never be allowed to say a line that has been associated with his character for decades. It was a peculiar claim, considering that he, in character, also never said that line (and it was never spoken in the series, though it did come close once). On a different show, the lead actor went on to play a character you could consider the adoptive uncle of his character in this series." Anyway, I'm actually aware of two series in which the two main characters are named in the title. The two series do NOT have the same name. I'm looking for the earlier of the two series." "One of the shows featuring the two title characters as the title characters is currently airing. I'm looking for the other one. Plenty of other show and movies in which only one of the title characters is a title character (the other is usually present, but not a title character)." "On yet another show, the lead actress went on to play the mother of her character in this series. " So. We have 2 title characters, more than once. We have a current show. We have characters who have had shows DECADES ago. One character was played by an actor, who went on to play the adoptive uncle of the character a different time. With 2 title characters, we can obviously skip Zorro, the Lone Ranger, the Green Hornet, Tarzan, Flash Gordon.

"This series featured neither the first nor the last portrayals of the title characters. The actor who played one title character recently said in today's political climate, he would never be allowed to say a line that has been associated with his character for decades. It was a peculiar claim, considering that he, in character, also never said that line (and it was never spoken in the series, though it did come close once). On a different show, the lead actor went on to play a character you could consider the adoptive uncle of his character in this series." "It is not a spinoff. Not aware of any series in which Cindy Williams or Penny Marshall played their own uncle. Anyway, I'm actually aware of two series in which the two main characters are named in the title. The two series do NOT have the same name. I'm looking for the earlier of the two series." "One of the shows featuring the two title characters as the title characters is currently airing. I'm looking for the other one. Plenty of other show and movies in which only one of the title characters is a title character (the other is usually present, but not a title character)." "If anyone can think of how he can get any closer without giving away the answer, I'm all ears. " "Neither. Batman was not a character on either show. Not that I know of." "On yet another show, the lead actress went on to play the mother of her character in this series. "

Now I'm wondering if it's an MLJ property, like "Riverdale", "Archie", "Sabrina the Teenage Witch". I don't think the "Scooby Doo" franchise can fit the clues no matter how many series' there were. Then again, if Batman MIGHT have been on one of the shows, it's probably a DC property. (That's not guaranteed- they appeared in a "Scooby Doo movies" episode vs the Joker and Penguin. ) Any ideas shake loose, George? I get the feeling we're right on top of this, and still missing it.

"The New Adventures of Batman" was the cartoon in the 70s that added Batgirl and Bat-Mite. "The Adventures of Batman & Robin" was basically the sequel to "Batman-the Animated Series." "The Adventures of Batman" was the old Filmation cartoon from the 60s. I'm sure we're right on top of the answer. One show IS CURRENTLY AIRING- if we could name that one, I'm sure we'd have the other. ("Gotham Knights?" "Titans?" )

George and I have got to be able to figure this one out.

Who is my neighbor? Jesus explained that one with a parable about a Jew who needed help, and, of all people, one of those stinking, lousy, no-good, low-down SAMARITANS was the person who helped him. Jesus made it clear that SAMARITAN was the one who "was neighbor" to the Jew who needed help. It was such a noxious concept that the Jew who asked him couldn't bring him to say "the SAMARITAN who helped him", but said "the one who showed mercy on him." Jesus, having told the parable of the Good Samaritan, said to do like that guy. "Go and do thou likewise" is how the KJV renders it. So, who's your neighbor? According to Jesus, you can't exclude that Muslim, that Jew, that Black guy, that Asian guy, that Pakistani, that African dude, that redneck, that smug anti-Christian, that Pastafarian, etc. Jesus set the standard very high, and said to do that.

In short, if you love God with everything you've got, and love your neighbor like you love yourself, nobody has to tell you not to steal, not to kill, etc,- BECAUSE YOU'LL AVOID DOING THEM WITHOUT SPECIFIC RULES. vpw's own rule was different: "If you love God, and you love your neighbor, you can do as you fool well please." He started with loving God and neighbor, but changed that you would follow the rules automatically (which is interesting because he mentioned that quickly in passing.) Why the difference? vpw went in small steps from what the verses said, to what he WANTED the verses to say. He went from "If you love God and love your neighbor, you'll follow the whole law automatically" to "so long as you love God and love your neighbor, you can do as you fool well please" to "anything done with the love of God is pure" "to the pure, all things are pure" etc. In small steps, he went from "obey the law out of love" to "you can do whatever you want and it's fine". Why did he want that? He wanted to justify doing whatever he wanted and wanted to pretend God Almighty was fine with that. It's no different than when he told Jim D00p that God Almighty was fine with ORGIES and tried to use a verse to justify it. For those who wonder where you've seen the small steps before, it's a very old technique. Someone went from "Has God said 'you shall not eat of every tree in the garden?" step by step to go from "you shall surely die" to "you shall not surely die". Whose techniques did vpw copy? BTW, did vpw do that knowing enough about the Bible to know whose work he was copying (knowing he was copying the devil's playbook to rationalize the sin he himself wanted to do) or was vpw that deficient in the meaning of Scripture that he ripped off the devil's own techniques, techniques mentioned right in pfal, out of ignorance? It was either one or the other. (Usually, when there's a conundrum like this, where all possible answers are bad, someone makes a personal attack on me, so it's probably time for that very thing now, for those arriving late.)

T-Bone: "Jesus summarized the entire Jewish law with love - love for God and love for others . He did NOT simplify the law. There is a difference! Jesus spoke of the first and great commandment and the second is like unto it - to love God and to love neighbor - He said the entire law and the prophets hang on that. That is a summary- He indicated all prohibitions to sin - i.e., to NOT commit adultery, to NOT lie, to NOT steal, etc., He recapitulated all the main points of the law showing how they all relate to loving God and neighbor. In PFAL wierwille taught it WRONG! He simplified it - he said Jesus reduced all the law down to just 2 commandments. To reduce or simplify is to eliminate or lessen components. Knowing about wierwille’s moral depravity, it makes perfect sense he would like to blur boundaries and obfuscate what is right and wrong. There’s no specifics…it’s left up to the individual to determine what is right and wrong….That’s how he could commit unconscionable acts and rationalize sin out of it by saying “anything done in the love of God is okay” Jesus didn’t teach THAT! He summarized! It’s like He drew a big umbrella over all the specific prohibitions and said the love for God and others are the prime directives - that love covers every scenario! If you love God and others you should not commit adultery, you should not lie, steal, etc. Love was the basis for the law! The summary does not eliminate any components - it merely gives the big picture of how we conduct our lives should always reflect loving God and others."

As for vpw's explanation of "love God, love your neighbor, then you can do as you fool well please" was both UNINFORMATIVE and INCORRECT. The entire purpose of that was to INSERT vpw's "private interpretation" (as he would call it) into a verse that did not contain "do as you fool well please." The goal was to get people used to the idea that God Almighty was fine with them "doing as they fool well pleased". However, that contradicted the actual verses. It's so obvious. IF you actually A) love God Almighty with everything you've got and B) love your neighbor like you love yourself, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to "do as you fool well please." Your actions will reflect pleasing God and being a good neighbor and making God and neighbor happy. And before anyone claims that just applied to someone living next door, Jesus himself clarified "who is my neighbor" with the parable of The Good Samaritan. THAT was the example Jesus gave. Luke 10: 29-37 KJV 29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? 30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. Which was the example Jesus gave? He found the stranger, and had him healed and taken care of at his own expense. "Go and do thou likewise." As for the priest and the Levite, who SUPPOSEDLY served God and avoided the stranger who needed help? They did as they fool well pleased. According to vpw, that was FINE- becuase he was setting the stage for himself to have free reign to do whatever he wanted to, and encourage likewise. vpw had FAR more in common with the religious hypocrites of Jesus' day than with the disciples he CLAIMED to resemble (and insinuate he outperformed.)

T-Bone: " i think we ought to call it variations on a theme; vp had numerous ways of asserting this same malleable code of ethics: love God & neighbor and do as you fool well please what i may allow in my life you may not allow in yours and visa versa [used often in many of his live teachings] ~~ and several i remember from the pajama party mentioned in my post # 460 - after showing us the bestiality video he addressed the possibility that some of us may have been kinda weirded out by it - saying such things as unto the pure all things are pure when you become spiritually mature you can handle anything i've so renewed my mind that things like this don't bother me he said he showed us the video out of his concern for us as potential leaders who can't afford to be shocked by anything if we want to help people - he tied that into anything done in the love of God is okay - like him preparing us for extremely unusual counseling situations - it takes the love of God to do that ~~ folks here can probably mention more variations on a theme.....but it was the same old theme wasn't it - i can do as i fool well please !

[I noticed some time back that vpw's summary led to "DO AS YOU FOOL WELL PLEASE." That was vpw's standard. That was vpw's goal. That was what vpw said in conclusion, too. He claimed that the LAW had been boiled down to two rules, then discarded both. He said it was all subsumed in "Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself." He then said that "if you love God, and love your neighbor as yourself, then you can do as you fool well please." He never spent any time on what either would entail, however- probably because his goal was not "love God and love your neighbor as yourself", (for his actions showed neither), but his coda of "do as you fool well please." I mean, think about it. "Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself" IS THE OPPOSITE OF vpw's "do as you fool well please." The one who cares about God will seek to do the things that please God- and will seek to bless others because God likes that. The one who only cares about himself will "do as he fool well pleases." In hindsight, vpw's rule is less kind than Christians in general, in all the churches, and is less kind than the rule the wiccans/pagans follow. Their rule is "IF IT HURTS NO ONE, do what you will." If vpw had even the morals of the pagans and wiccans, he would not have drugged, molested, nor raped others. Other Christians just find this level of morals horrifying. Look- we love Daddy and want to make Him happy because He's so nice. So, He tells us what actions make him happy, and we do them. We don't need Him to threaten to punish us for not doing them. We love Him and want to make Him proud. How can anyone possibly have trouble understanding this?]

"If you love God, and love your neighbor as yourself, you can do as you fool well please." ============================= Ok. Take a minister who leaves his denomination with stories of "inappropriate behavior with his secretary". Then send him to where there are Christians and some people pushing "free love" and orgies. Why is he there? http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=160989 Jim D explained it. " As we relaxed and had a second drink, he asked Judy and me to describe what is was like to attend an orgy. We were taken back by the question and embarrassed by it, because even though it was part of our testimony in our deliverance from sin to God's righteousness, no one had ever asked us to describe what it was like to go to an orgy. We found his curiosity shocking. But we gave him a brief description which is really all we could give him since our encounter with an orgy had been so brief. We had attended one orgy sponsored by the San Francisco Sexual Freedom League, but we were so overwhelmed by the spectacle that we had left after twenty minutes. "You know that's all available," V.P. said. "God put it in I Corinthians 7:1 which He said 'It is good for a man not to touch a woman.' If it wasn't available to have sex outside the marriage God would have said 'best' instead of 'good.'" I could not believe what I was hearing. I responded with, "I just thank God that He pulled our soul out of that pit of debauchery." When Judy and I went to bed, I said to her, "I don't believe what he said tonight, and I'm going to forget it. I must have misunderstood him." vpw told Jim God said orgies were "available." ============== ""Weirwille sought things to validate his position. He did NOT research the word and change his opinion to IT. I becamed pretty good friends with Jim D*0p. He told me that he, Jim, had a ministry where they were sexually loose and an anything goes kinda group out in California. Weirwille flew out there, telling folks it was to talk with Jim about the Bible and witness or something to him. Jim told me Weirwille flew out there to LEARN from Jimmy about the free sex thinking. Weirwille said he always believed sex should be free and allowed with as many as you feel you want to be with -- but could NEVER prove it from the Bible. He was there to see if Jimmy could prove it was okay via scripture. D0*p never really could and was more of a hippie minister than a sexual pervert looking for Biblical validation. Weirwille had these concepts, notions, urges, illnesses and tried to find a way to SELL them to us. He was not about to CHANGE his thinking according to scripture. He was not a researcher. He was similar to a lot of cult leaders. He had an idea and looked for people who would buy into it. Like Charlie Manson." ================= ""He also told a small group at Emporia one night to teach their children about their bodies, "you can brush their nipple with your hand and show them how it hardens. You can show them not to be ashamed of their body reactions" Then he shared about the African Tribe where the Father broke the hymen of the daughters to get them experienced in sex to prepare them for marriage -- he thought it to be beautiful. VPW had already let me see his dark side. Sitting there I thought OH MY GOD, this is subtle but he is teaching this group that it is beautiful to teach your daughters how to have sex, it is just not accepted in our culture! He was standing behind his sex problems and setting us up to have sex with our godly "family" as well as the earthly one."

I'd like to take this opportunity to address an error concerning our liberty in Christ, and how badly-mangled the Bible's teaching on this was when we were learning. vpw said-right in pfal- that if you love God and you love your neighbor, "YOU CAN DO AS YOU FOOL WELL PLEASE." I submit that the point of this was to de-emphasize loving God and loving your neighbor, since that's the only way you can do what vpw REALLY wanted to teach, "YOU CAN DO AS YOU FOOL WELL PLEASE." Let's see what Jesus said on the subject, shall we? KJV. Luke 10:25-27. "25And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." Here we see the first part of what we said-"love God, and love your neighbor as yourself." Now let's see the SECOND part-when Jesus gives an example of what that means. Luke 10:28-37. "28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. 29But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? 30And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 33But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 36Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise." Jesus gave an example of loving your neighbor-funny how he specified it was about NEIGHBOR, and not LOVE. The priest and the Levite in Jesus' example, I suspect, offered a prayer for the man who was beaten and robbed. They offered the standard twi level of compassion. "Give them The Word, pray for them, but if they have a physical need, tell them to suck it up and make sure they attend pfal on time." Then the priest and Levite proceeded to "do as they full well pleased." The Samaritan-a fellow of questionable religious knowledge (unlike the priest and Levite)- was the example Jesus used- a man who didn't consider the personal cost to himself (although he obviously could afford what he did without impoverishing himself) but instead took compassionate ACTION to him. He spent his own TIME and his own MONEY, and had no expectation of receiving any favours in return. Jesus at no point advocated "doing as you fool well please", unlike vpw. ======= Ok, let's suppose we can blow off Jesus' words, like we learned in twi, and only focus on the Epistles. "They're addressed to us! We can follow THEM and blow off the 'previous administration'!" In Romans 14, we see specifics "that have your name on them", as vpw said. Romans 14:13-21. "13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." We have liberty in Christ, but if we think "do as you fool well please" is what it means, we don't UNDERSTAND the liberty we have in Christ. If our freedom allows us to put a stumblingblock in front of a brother in Christ, we are not to use that freedom. A free Christian is FREER TO DO GOOD, but NOT FREER TO DO EVIL, or to do that which God says not to do. A Christian CAN do these things, but a Christian IS NOT to do these things. Out of love, he voluntarily limits his freedom. Is this bondage? Is this legalism? Is this being "a wimpy Christian who lives by the law?" NO. This is doing what God said to do. Even our liberty to eat foods offered to idols has limitations. I Corinthians 8:1-13. 1Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3But if any man love God, the same is known of him. 4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 7Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." So, out of love for God and brethren, we are to use our freedom to FREELY CHOOSE to limit our actions, to help our brethren. So, can we at least make fun of "wimpy Christians", and turn aside? If we have to limit ourselves, can we just leave them alone after that? After all, someone once claimed "Weakness always brings down strength." Sadly for the "macho" Christian, NO. Romans 15:1-3. "1We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. 3For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me." One may contrast that with the explanation of what to do when our brethren are offended back in pfal. vpw himself spoke to the effect of DISREGARDING those offended. After all, he said, if one person didn't like my tie, another might not like my vest, and at that rate, "pretty soon we'd get down to bare facts." It sounds soooo CLEVER, but if I had to choose between SOUNDING CLEVER and SPEAKING GOD'S WORD, I shall continue to be clumsy and awkward, and speak the words of God.

For those who want more on rfr, here's the previous link, and another with connecting links... https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/1852-what-do-we-know-about-the-fox/ https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/6604-who-is-rosalie-fox-rivenbark/

https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/6604-who-is-rosalie-fox-rivenbark/