WordWolf

It changed a lot of people. The Jesus People movement, from what I've seen, was a legitimate movement of God that paid no attention to denominations, organizations, and so on. It was DIVERTED into a few groups in some places, and the fire and life of the Jesus People was tapped and used to power some hidebound doctrines and organizations, primarily twi. The movement was doing fine until it was adulterated with twi leaven. Sadly, a lot of young, idealistic Christians were tricked into conflating Jesus with twi, and missed the real movement. vpw did his best to get the young, impressionable youths to think that genuine Christianity was synonymous with twi. He succeeded beyond his wildest expectations. There's still people who do that decades after he died. In fact, even with a wealth of evidence showing how vpw was a liar, a cheat, a conman, a plagiarist, and an evil man, they STILL think that. If only they would drop the religion of twi and looked ONLY to Christ, they'd go much farther than they are now! It changed many people. In fact, some of them it killed- which is about as radical a change as you can get. Change the WORLD? Depends how small your world is. Many local churches have a larger footprint than twi had at its peak. {Read through the testimonials of Scientologists sometime. They may sound familiar.] [This comes as a surprise to you? That's a trend for several MILLENIA.]

Next movie. "I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto."

It's of a piece of what we know. vpw told lcm that he had to "loosen up sexually" if he was going to minister to God's people, and also went out of his way to try to get lcm to make himself into a vpw clone.

We can all find at least ONE PERSON who espouses the most ridiculous bs. Finding ONE PERSON who will bad-mouth Jim and actually met him is not a great accomplishment. Trick question. IN HINDSIGHT, vpw obviously was self-serving. AT THE TIME, vpw was a successful conman. See, there's 2 types of conmen- the successful and the UNsuccessful. The UNsuccessful are more "obviously self-serving." They offer a product that does not convince people is legitimate. Those conmen, in true Darwinian fashion, are caught, exposed, arrested, imprisoned, and then things really go downhill for them. SUCCESSFUL conmen like vpw are not "OBVIOUSLY self-serving." They cover their greed with a disguise of altruism and good-will. They offer a product that convinces people it's legitimate. That's how they're able to con people in the first place. vpw was this type of conman-otherwise, he would just have vanished into history like dozens of "snake-oil salesmen" throughout history. As a good-hearted man, Jim actually TRUSTED that people told him the truth, especially when they claimed to care about God. That's not what vpw said. "The Way:Living in Love, pg-174. "I always knew I wanted to help people. First, I thought I wanted to be a doctor, then a lawyer; but by my junior year in college, I had my heart set on the ministry." Even vpw didn't say that about himself. Mind you, even there, his story isn't consistent. He had "Uncle Harry" claiming when vpw ditched doing his farm-chores that, just like Billy Graham, he was practicing preaching by "preaching to the trees" despite admitting he never actually SAW him do that. When he was growing up, vpw had built a reputation locally as a bully and a show-off. The Way:Living in Love, pg-177. "After I met Rosalind Rinker in Indiana, I invited her to visit us in Payne, and she came for a week that summer of 1942. Maybe it was August. I remember it was near the end of summer, and she used to dog me on the Bible being the Word of God. She talked to me about getting my own life in alignment and harmony with the Bible. She was the one who had me make out lists of the good things I'd done, that was about half a page, and all the bad things, that amounted to 10 or 12 pages. She was off on that part, but the Bible as the Word of God, she really pushed that one. And I'd never heard that in all my years of school-not believing it anyway." vpw went to seminary school, and spent over a year as a minister, doing weekly sermons, and THEN believed the Bible was the Word of God. He didn't just act as an honest minister, then get up one morning and find a hot secretary in his living room, buck nekkid, with a rose in her teeth. He planned things, arranged things, and eventually succeeded in his plans to molest and rape young women. He worked it out pretty early. He went to San Francisco to meet the hippies and recruit them. While there, he bought pornographic materials- you saw those in CFS. While there, he tried to convince Jim D that ORGIES WERE FINE WITH GOD and tried to use the Bible to say that. The bigger the public audience, the more moral he talked, but the more private the conditions, the more he said his REAL thoughts- that God was ok with casual sex. He told all the wows it wasn't fine. He told the more exclusive corps, sometimes, that it WAS. And to a few people one-on-one, he actually said things like God was ok with ORGIES. Jim, on the other hand, was clear God disapproved, and was glad to be delivered from things like that, before vpw ever HEARD of him. Explanations follow the most direct explanation. Jim D saw the materials from Leonard, Stiles and Bullinger that vpw plagiarized (Kenyon as well), and that all looked legitimate- because THEIR WORK was legitimate. Truth at the pen of a plagiarist is still truth. In the case of vpw, vpw used THEIR TRUTH to hide HIS sex obsessions. No. Their one talk on the subject, vpw was pushing for Jim to tell him what ORGIES were like. vpw said that God was cool with it and it was "AVAILABLE." Jim DISAGREED, thanked God he was free of such things, and ended the conversation. (vpw had made him uncomfortable by even ASKING about orgies.)] "That's why moral superiority is a myth. We're all human. We all get tempted. We all screw things up. Moral superiority is merely a spiritual football." You're able to imagine that a man vpw failed to corrupt might have been corrupted by vpw, so you get to skip over all of morality? Sad, sad, sad. Shameless how much of the Bible gets discarded, all to excuse an evil hypocrite's evil deeds and moral deficiencies. "So you say it's just not possible that a Christian ministry can have skeletons in its closet like that?" NO. We say it is a mockery of God for a supposed minister to do so evilly, and that such a man or woman should be removed from office, exposed to his congregation, and subjected to the fullest prosecution of criminal law. People sin, but for someone claiming to represent God to orchestrate things to perform evil acts upon God's people is a whole different thing, and the Bible condemns such people roundly. Some of them LOST THEIR LIVES for such. "Look at all the denominations. They are part of the body of Christ, yet they believe Jesus is God, which is idolatry, and which is REQUIRED for membership in the National Council of Churches! This is not good, yet they are part of the body of Christ. People go to those churches and get saved, delivered from bondage, feel like they belong in the body of Christ, all that good stuff. It happens there, too." [so, according to you, it's excusable for a minister to set up a love shack, arrange for young parishioners to be sent there, drug them, then rape or molest them, but teaching the Trinity is to be thoroughly condemned. Fascinating.] "None of us is qualified to be a moral policeman or judge. We can say this is wrong, that is wrong, and slice it up as finely as we can, but to build this gigantic, bigger than life, superstructure, where VP is the epitome of evil? That's God's job. I'm not building a statue to VP. YOU'RE building a statue to moral superiority." [if I ever see someone "build this gigantic, bigger than life superstructure where vpw is the epitome of evil", I'll probably warn them it's disproportionate to the degree of his evil deeds, and wrong. The idea that anyone's doing this now is a convenient FICTION for you, but, hey, it's not like your posts here have been concerned with things like "truth" and "reality" so far, so this hardly comes as a surprise. And one need not "build a statue" to someone to idolize them- one only need move them from their proper place and make them a higher authority than Scripture. Not like you're going to see the difference.]

I disagree that setting up structures still classifies one as a nihilist. It's like when comedian Bob Nelson explained he was going to perform a "pantomine". "Except it will have sound effects, and I will talk during it." The joke was, of course, now it's no longer a "pantomime". I think setting up structures disqualifies someone from being a true nihilist. Then again, you and I approach things from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum (you emphasize personal freedom while I think it's possible to work fairly within the system, and that a system is better overall than NO system), so it's no surprise you and I would disagree on how nihilism works and is defined. I think we probably reached our limit on where we agree on it. Personally, I'd rather get back to the thread and let it go back to just one derailer. ;)

This is getting off-topic a bit (not that we weren't already), but... Let's get a quick, working definition of "nihilism." https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nihilism "...is the philosophical belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy." To go from that, I'd say nihilism, as I've understood it, wants a removal of all social constructs and social organization. vpw most certainly did not believe in that- he wanted social constructs and organizations- he just wanted them organized to HIS convenience and to HIS rules. That's why he set up so much structure in twi- classes at precise levels, numbers of prerequisites, different colored armbands, different nametags, multiple programs (fellow-labourers, corps, spouse corps, recognized corps, university of life, wow, etc etc). No nihilist would BUILD programs. They'd argue to remove all programs. vpw advocated FOR loyalties- loyalties to HIM and to his organization. (In the cases of a few people, he's exceeded his wildest expectations, IMHO.) As for nothing being known nor comunicated, vpw organized twi as a modern take on some sort of "mystery religion" and "gnosic" cult, where value is placed on KNOWLEDGE, especially esoteric, HIDDEN ("occulted") knowledge. No man could push for so many different classes and claim at the same time that knowledge doesn't really exist. He claimed he was either the fountain of all REAL knowledge or that he was the only man who could tap into the Fountain of All REAL Knowledge, depending on who he was speaking to. (Usually he IMPLIED it and let others SAY it outright, which provided him with "plausible deniability"- he MEANT it but since he didn't SAY it, some people could claim he never MEANT it.) As defined by those with more precise definitions, among "conformist" "innovator", "ritualist", "retreatist" and "rebel" (like Merton), vpw would have been a "rebel." He rejected both the establishment's goals (spend your life serving the flock, the leader washes the feet of the disciples) and the means of accomplishing goals (the denominations in effect when he joined them), and substituted his own goals (I want the money, the recognition, and to satisfy all my impulses like sex, alcohol, tobacco whenever I want to) and his own means (parcel out the organization in pieces that people can be charged money for. Tell them their goal is always in the next level- then repeat the process as they pay for another level.) L Ron Hubbard pulled much the same thing in regards to means. Herbert W Armstrong seems to have done both with means and goals when he was alive. vpw was neither the first nor the last to do things like that, and isn't even well-known among such. However, this is small comfort for those hurt by his immoral, evil means (him personally or the organization he set up for them which hurt people).

[No, John. let's compare them with what they were actually discussing. I noticed you left off the links to the original posts, which might suggest to people that YOU DELIBERATELY WANTED TO ROB THEM OF THEIR CONTEXTS TO CHANGE THEIR MEANING. Hey, robbed of its context, someone can claim the Bible says "There is no God". When you made a claim of "an infinity of things" vpw was accused of, I responded to your SPECIFIC CLAIM: The post you quoted out of context was in response to your own claim here: So she QUOTED YOU and replied to that very claim, showing how it's obvious there's no moral equivalency between those who do horribly and those who do good. In other words, your unsupported claim was REFUTED. There is acting accorting to good morals, and that's better than acting according to poor morals. Here's her response. [As anyone can see, when not robbed of its context, this had nothing to do with what you claimed it meant. This is easy to see for even the lightly-educated, so all I can conclude is that you saw what she said, and DELIBERATELY CHOSE to distort the meaning and LIE in order to accomplish some goal. That's immral.] It is neither slander nor liabel. Nobody connected such claims to twi, vpw or anyone else until YOU judt changed the clearly posted meaning to do so. Why are you shamelessly lying about the posts others post here? Are you willing to do ANY AND EVERY immoral thing, just to derail threads, thus concealing the evil deeds we discussed of vpw before your diversion into "moral superiority is a myth", as you falsely asserted? Are you willing to do evil to keep people from discussing vpw's evil and immoral deeds? Is that what this is all about?] Nobody made such a ridiculous claim. All of this is a smokescreen. We didn't say that morals affected anything but conduct. You're the only one who seems unclear about what morals should affect.] You said "moral superiority is a myth." That's it. No qualifiers as to "by this I mean..." Just that superiority of morals- AND THUS, GOOD AND EVIL DEEDS- are a "MYTH." Ridiculous claim, but it was yours and people responded accordingly. I noticed you seem to claim you SAID this, yet provide neither a LINK to where you supposedly said this, nor a QUOTE where you supposedly said this. Is that because you never said anything along those lines? Is it because you're posting one thing, and yet these threads proceed differently in your mind, and mentally you're rewriting these threads so you're making sense and we aren't? I think the continuing absence of anything to support your assertions says something about that, even when you are silent. Silence can indeed tell us some things.]

For the benefit of the few people who (like Johniam) may have difficulty following what people mean in a discussion when he brings something up and people discuss it, I've grouped part of the discussion here for easy reference. Most people had no trouble without it, but I am able to help along those unable or unwilling to proceed logically when I wish. So, a few posts, with "help files enabled". {Here's where we pick up this part of the discussion. In order to try to excuse an evil man (as SCRIPTURE puts it) and an IMmoral man from the IMmorality he performed, John attempted to dismiss the entire subject of MORALITY and IMMORALITY. This is bizarre for a Christian who claims to believe the Bible, but people trying to excuse vpw for his evil actions have eagerly contradicted the Bible at will for decades, so this is hardly a new conversational gambit. So, after such a claim was made (to the Christian, a RIDICULOUS claim), responses to that claim- that morality is a "MYTH", that morals between all people REGARDLESS OF THEIR DEEDS NO MATTER HOW GOOD OR HOW EVIL- were posted. Few people would NEED the responses- children have little difficulty learning some things are right to do and wrong to do- but discussion fora tend to have responses to such claims because that's what happens when someone makes an outlandish claim in a discussion forum.] [What was the previous poster saying, and what was she not saying? Was she saying "Oh, there was a man in twi who kidnapped children, molested them and murdered them?" No. Was she saying "Oh, there was a man in twi who dedicated his life to feeding hungry children?" No. She was responding to the rather SPECIFIC claim- and quoted it to make it obvious "this is what I'm responding to"- that "moral superiority is a myth", which is the ridiculous claim Johniam made. She gave obvious examples of a very IMMORAL man and a very MORAL man. Can we all see the difference between the two men? Apparently, nearly everyone CAN see the difference. Sadly, John didn't. It's like he either didn't read the post at all, or there's something lacking in his understanding, where the entire subject of morals has been crippled, possibly due to exposure to horribly twisted morals. Or, he chose to ignore the obvious meaning in order to attempt to twist the reply into addressing something it didn't approach, and ignored that it said something specific in the first place. No matter which possibility it is, that's certainly SAD. Adults are normally capable of much better, and even posters with mental disabilities all over cyberspace can tell the difference. (I've communicated with a number, they've never made such monumentous mistakes in fora.) So, she refuted John's claim that "moral superiority is a myth" by giving examples anyone SHOULD find easy to understand.] [This poster (me) even attempted to show John from Scripture how completely wrong Johniam's idea that "moral superiority is a myth" is. Despite us seeing about a week ago that the Bible explains how to tell "good men" and "evil men" apart, John's missed it again and is still saying there's no "moral superiority", thus, no "good", no "evil" among humans. So, from Scripture again to show him how obviously false this is. If John really cared about the Bible, you'd think he'd have learned such basics in the past decades, or at least be thankful to be shown a few of the verses he seems to have missed. So, the Bible says there are morals, good and evil, and that calling morals a "myth" is the activity of those who are immoral and evil. Again, should be "Foundational" level- and for almost all Christians, indeed it IS. There's only a minority, generally clustered among people who learned from vpw and twi, who seem to be unable or unwilling to understand the concept- or eager to dismiss part of the Bible.] [Was the entire claim that morals don't really exist sincere? It seems made to excuse one from even BOTHERING to try to live as God said to live, in order that one may "do as you fool well please", as vpw said you could do in the pfal Foundational class. Is it offensive to have those attempting to perform right actions lumped together with those who made doctrines out of sinful practices? Most people, Christians and non-Christians, would probably find it so. Is this hard to understand? Not for nearly every teenager and adult who hears or reads such a thing...]

vpw claimed he took "EVERY" course Moody offered, in their correspondence classes. He probably added the 2nd part to cover that he wasn't on their campus for months and years it would take to actually TAKE their classes. As it turns out, Moody has never HEARD of him. He claimed he took "EVERY" course they offered. They don't have a record of him taking ANY course they've offered. So, it was a lie, and one that shows his laziness again- he wanted the credentials but he didn't want to put in the work FOR the credentials.

Actually, that was Rita Mae Brown. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiquote/en/wiki/Rita_Mae_Brown Einstein is said to have said it, but that's misattributed. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiquote/en/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Misattributed

I never met the man, but lots of people did, some of whom posted here. I would call him a solid, genuine Christian. I'm slow to add labels, especially when I lack first-hand contact with the material. I don't think I'd call him a teacher, prophet or pastor, but I could be wrong.

[i think I'm morally superior to any man (or woman) who would claim to represent God Almighty in any way, and then seeks to molest men, women or minors, whether or not he uses his "godly" credentials to facilitate that. I think I'm morally superior to any man (or woman) who would claim it is all right to claim to represent God Almighty in any way, and then seek to molest men, women or minors. I don't go around talking about that, and in fact, I didn't think of it this way until you brought up the subject of "moral superiority." When it comes to standing for God's judgement, I'll be a lot more secure of my standing than that of evil men who did such. As for the idea that "moral superiority is a myth", I'll accept that a Bible-REJECTER could claim such a thing, saying there is NO God, there is NO divine authority to the Bible, that the Bible's testimony is not God's Word, that there is NO good and evil. I'll also note that some people who say that have no problem with thinking there's something wrong about trying to molest men, women or minors, whether or not they can explain WHY it's wrong. Romans 2:14-15 (NASB) 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, ================= As for the Bible and the subject of there being NO "moral superiority", it DOES address the subject. The Greek word in question is "anomias" or "anomos". It's a state when one says there is no moral superiority, no good, no evil, thus no morals. It's translated things like "wicked" in the KJV, and it's a word associated with the Man of Sins to come in the end-times. That man is often referred to as "the anti-Christ." So, whose gospel do you follow? Jesus told people things like "GO AND SIN NO MORE" and obeying God. The Epistles often give directions to right action, saying what should be done, what shouldn't be done, and what should be avoided for the sake of others in order to avoid being a stumblingblock to them. On the other hand, vpw made up doctrines to excuse himself from the sinfulness of his sinful thoughts, his sinful plans, and sinful actions. Everyone has sinful thoughts now and again- but the rest of us elect not to act on them, and are honest about when we DO act on them that we sin and displease God. Of course, the greatest moral relativists in all of history and time make vpw look like an amateur- that old serpent decided that it was acceptable to oppose God, to attempt to overthrow Him and attempt to be like The Most High. When "anti-Christ" comes, he will be a FAR bigger sinner and religious hypocrite than vpw on his worst days. When speaking on morals, whose company do you WANT to keep? Jesus Christ, God Almighty, Paul vpw, satan, anti-Christ. Can you even SEE what makes the difference between the two?]

WordWolf often uses alternate spellings, like the British "colour" and "flavour". :) [What he's saying is that, for the most part, we SUPPORT our statements with something- generally documentation, evidence, even logic where appropriate. Variations of "it's related because I say it's related" or insulting someone rather than REFUTING them are inferior in intelligent discussion- which means that they're ALLOWED on a DISCUSSION board, but it's plainly obvious the the average reader and the average poster that the one attempting to use STYLE INSTEAD of SUBSTANCE really brings little to the table. If you HAVE something to bring to the discussion, either bring it or be resigned to bringing placeholders and having everybody else know it. Mind you, some people know others know they're full of hot air, and they're fine with it, so it's up to you if that's what you're happy with.]

I was actually thinking "the only other movie I remember a Butch would have been Pulp Fiction or possibly the Little Rascals, but I don't remember that line from Pulp Fiction." Was that really a line that people hear and immediately say "that's Pulp Fiction"? I posted a quote in "Name that Flick" once and someone immediately identified "Duck Soup" because they had the movie all but memorized. I like Duck Soup, and even I would probably have missed it with only that quote. I would never try that line here because it doesn't leap out and say "Duck Soup" to anyone except hardcore Marx Brothers fans- and even many of them would have missed it.

Heh. I noticed that long before Quaid did. As soon as the guy started visibly sweating, I tapped a friend sitting next to me-in the pattern of the sweat. By the time I was finished explaining, Quaid was just noticing it and the camera was focusing on it.

There's a certain irony in twi telling people to ONLY go to them and to RUN from anything else on the internet- then having twi admit that the credible way to publish their response to something was to use an external site, especially one that was most famous for being their loudest critic. On the other hand, the GSC BUILT its own credibility over time (a minority disagree, but a minority disagrees the space program is real and a minority also things Obama is a Muslim), and twi has LOST its own credibility over time. Having the LOW credibility place give what little credibility they have to the HIGH credibility place is amusing, but in all honesty, the GSC never needed twi to give it credibility.

I think the evidence trail is pretty clear. He wanted an easier job than working on a farm. He considered business, music,and preaching. Business was unreliable and is a lot of work. Music would allow him to pursue lots of vices- musicians do that all the time- but it also is unreliable- and is more work than it appears, with no guarantee of success. It's said it takes 7 years of preparation to become an "overnight success". So, neither was a guaranteed living. So, preaching. This allowed him to remain the center of attention and get people to listen to him (by his own words, that was critically important), guaranteed a comfortable living, and LOOKED LIKE he worked 1 day a week. Naturally, he discovered later it's more work than that, and people hold you accountable for good conduct if you're a preacher. So, he began setting up his little side-ventures-- Christian radio & music with Vesper Chimes and so on, all looking for an outside independent deal while on his denomination's paycheck. By his own words, he neither went into preaching, nor seminary school, nor actual preaching BELIEVING THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD. So, it's pretty clear he had another motive- which is obvious when you follow his history. He was a show-off as a teenager and followed a career which allowed him to continue to be a showoff. He succeeded in finding an independent deal when he found Leonard's class and plagiarized it. This gave him a product. When the family farm became the property of the brothers, he bought out the brothers and had it signed over to a religious organization he incorporated on the spot- which allowed him to skip taxes on the land, and gave him a staging area for his product. He got the final piece- the audience/customers- when he hijacked the hippies and sent them to sell his product/promote pfal. (Although it wasn't really "his" product- it was a melange plagiarized from different sources.) It wasn't until he got to the customers/audience/suckers that he began telling his "God spoke to me and made it snow" story. Supposedly, it happened in 1942, and it was 20 years later before he even mentioned it. Was it all deliberate? Yes, each step, each unprincipled act, each crime, all were planned and executed. However, I think he was such a thorough con man that he conned HIMSELF part of the time. I honestly think that when vpw told D00p that God permitted ORGIES, that vpw had convinced himself it was so. Someone noted that his final hours included him trying to figure out where he'd messed up-since he wasn't getting deliverance. Either he was STILL acting full-speed at the very end, or (which I think) he succeeded in conning HIMSELF part of the time. Yes, he knew it was all a fraud, but he put on the role so completely that the role became the actor. When it happens with a stage-actor, it's tragic. Evidence supports the idea that James Dean became obsessed with Brando's "Wild One", and became "Rebel Without a Cause" for the rest of his life. Not "typecast"- except by his own mind. When it happens outside the stage, it's a crying shame.

[Out in the wide world, there's Flat Earthers and people who think the space program is faked and TV wrestling is real.] [More of this silly black-white, absolute thinking. We've heard claims we were skeptical on, and some we rejected, and some we held out for more information before coming to any conclusions. vpw was not accused of "an infinity of things." If he was, it would be easy to dismiss some claims. Nobody's gone around accusing vpw of eating the flesh of other humans. Nobody's gone around accusing vpw of dismembering babies. Nobody's gone around accusing vpw of fecophilia. And so on, and so on. Those things we believe, we never "BLINDLY" believed, nor consider them "package" deals. WE have used the reasonable approach of evaluating each on its own merits. I've noticed some people discard ALL claims of any wrongdoing, no matter the extent of evidence. Now, THOSE people have "BLINDLY ACCEPTED ALL OF A TRUTH PACKAGE." They said "vpw is innocent of any wrongdoing no matter what!" and see nothing wrong with excusing vpw whenever the evidence is too strong that he actually DID evil things. Some people can see the Bible define EVIL, and then REJECT THE BIBLE as soon as vpw fits the description. That's a "BLIND" operation of some sort of "TRUTH PACKAGE."] [it saves so much time to just close one's eyes to the accounts of victims, eyewitnesses, material evidence, and so on rather than have to look them over and actually CONSIDER them all. If one has "blindly accepted" the "truth package" that vpw was a nice guy who didn't violate laws and didn't violate God's will, it certainly is a lot more pleasant to remain BLIND than to consider evidence.] [There's many reasons vpw was never arrested for various felonies he committed. Here's a few felonies, and here's why he was never arrested for them. A) He was never arrested for plagiarizing Leonard because Leonard decided not to press charges. He WAS hurt, however, and began posting notices about how wrong plagiarism is. B) He was never arrested for plagiarizing Stiles because Stiles never found out. vpw held distribution of twi books very tightly, and until the internet, that was all he needed to do to stay off Stiles' radar. C) He was never arrested for plagiarizing Bullinger because Bullinger was already dead. His plagiarism of each was still a crime- he just wasn't arrested for them. D) He was never arrested for raping the women of God because he set up an elaborate scheme and covered his tracks brilliantly- he selected the women least likely to speak up and most isolated from family, he taught that sex was ok and not a big deal (but never on tape, only live among corps and staff), he set up a network of people to help orchestrate incidents where he was alone with selected women of God, and had them monitor those women, and "counsel" them to remain silent. Those who seemed likely to NOT remain silent, he had their reputations SAVAGED and had them ostracized. He taught lcm to do the same. lcm didn't rely as much on the elaborate scheme, however, and was caught. Despite admissions of wrongdoing, lcm wasn't ARRESTED either- and that's a lot more about how the court system works than about lcm having admitted wrongdoing (which should have put him behind bars.)] [He plagiarized the work of great men. Truth from the mouth of a plagiarist is still truth. He doesn't deserve to be credited for it, however. Moreover, he also taught us great ERROR AGAINST GOD and His son Jesus Christ. The so-called "Law" of believing became a club to make people feel worse when bad things happened to them. He taught that "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king", which is contrary to Scripture. (However, it helped him set up his rapes and molestations and helped set the stage for them.) And so on. How can you tell the difference between the two? I Thessalonians 5:21 KJV "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." I Thessalonians 5:21 NASB "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good." Of course, people who keep promoting vpw as some great one, and pfal as some great program, find themselves incapable of obeying Scripture in this. They've BLINDLY accepted the "truth package" that if vpw, that settles it, they believe it.] [None of this invalidates chapter after chapter of Scripture where God tells US to do what is right and avoid doing what is wrong. We're supposed to do those- and if we supposedly understand Scripture, this should be GLARINGLY obvious. Plenty of people with low IQs who love God understand this as basic. Do good because it pleases God. Avoid evil because evil displeases God. We want to please God because he is worthy of pleasing, not because we are FORCED to do so. Kids that are raised in healthy homes want to put in the effort to do what their parents tell them- which is for their own benefit- mainly because they want to hear their parents say they are PROUD of them. That trumps any elaborate twisting of Scripture to excuse us from doing good.] [i even took a poll once- nobody was saying this. What they were saying is that when a man claims to teach about God, and makes noticeable doctrinal errors, and his lifestyle is a mockery of how God tells us to conduct ourselves, then it behooves us to be careful and examine everything such a man has taught us. A poor track record at accuracy on what we CAN observe means there's generally problems we HAVEN'T observed. If a mechanic is hired to fully recondition a car, and you examine his work, and you find a number of fundamental problems in the engine and so on, and he repairs those, how confident would you be that the things you DIDN'T examine were in fine shape? Why do you insist on a higher standard of excellence for an auto mechanic than for someone teaching on the eternal truths of God?] [in other words, Never, never, never question vpw. If you do, you're headed for despair, drugs....] [Actually, we think that people who lived in error should be shown they were, and shown the truth. We think that people who did wrongly should stop doing wrongly and do rightly. Romans 6:15 "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid." This is not difficult- for most people. Many non-Christians consider this a no-brainer.]

[Yet, if you did good, clear research, and it disagreed with vpw, you were in trouble. A seamless case was made that "adultery is bad", and twi tried to have it BURIED and said HORRIBLE things about it. (Many people were told they'd get POSSESSED if they READ it!} So, for vpw and twi, the word of vpw is of cardinal importance. The Bible is important, but when they disagree, it's vpw's way or the highway.]

It's really tough for the self-proclaimed "shovel-ready" MOGs. For one thing, people like GSC'ers keep airing their dirty laundry. People like JALvis just wish we'd go away. Others do the same- M1chael R00d's wishing they'd go away, too. For another thing, they keep ending up in jail. They all want to decide their particular vices are fine with God. The government keeps drawing the line at sex with minors and otherwise catch them committing crimes. On the other hand, there's always 2 more guys ready to take the place of each one the law puts in prison.

The evil hypocrite vpw shamelessly rewrote what each of the gift ministers was, all so he could use it to his own advantage. Sometimes he was willing to claim he was one or another- more often, he made the comparisons obvious and left it for others to say. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers. An APOSTLE is a "SENT ONE." A lot of Christians know this. But vpw said an apostle "brings new light to their generation. It may be old light, but to his generation, it's new light." vpw was obviously not a "sent one" because the only one who "sent" him was himself, and he "sent" himself wherever the money or the young women were. However, he claimed to bring "new light", although even he had to admit this "new light" was "old light" at the time, so he made up an excuse for THAT, too. Prophets speak for God, to God's people. Because they have to correct those going off, they are often HATED as bearers of bad news, and some spent time in prisons or tortured or killed for it. vpw was "a hard man to take" because he was immature and lacked self-control. He CLAIMED to speak for God. His claims never made him a REAL prophet. Evangelists speak to the people to win new Christians. vpw rewrote this too- he said an evangelist isn't the one who goes out, he's the one who gets the OTHER Christians fired up to go out. He stays back, smoking cigars and drinking Drambuie out of a coffee cup. Very convenient for vpw. He could make all sorts of claims and work maybe 2 days a week, and still claim titles under God. Pastors are like shepherds. Jesus said the shepherd gives his life for the sheep. The shepherd is THE protector of the flock, and risks his own life for the flock. vpw USED the flock, and considered the flock ripe for fleecing. He SPOKE about using up his life for the flock, then went back, lit another cigar and poured himself more booze. Teachers- not every person can be propped in front of a room and actually be a gift minister of a teacher. Those teachers CHANGE LIVES. FOR THE BETTER. Those who vpw changed more have just become vpw machines, spitting out vpw dogma and rhetoric, and crushing their own free will in the process. vpw was to teaching what Dahmer was to fine dining.

Having been shown unable to support his position from Scripture, John seems to have fallen back on personal attacks to try to change the subject. Someone once called that "argumentum ad yourmomium." When you see this, it's as good as a confession. He cannot defend his position and he will not consider that he might be wrong. In other words, "yo mama." Amazing how the black-and-white thinker here- the one who insists vpw MUST be lauded because John learned some good stuff- accuses the others of the black-and-white thinking. Old news. The Pharisees accused Jesus, too. They are ridiculous. And it was ridiculous of John to try to put those words in our mouths. Sports champions and military leaders are not MORAL examples, and were never meant to be. Those teaching about God Almighty are supposed to like what He likes, dislike what He dislikes, and do what He says to do. They are NOT to just "do as they fool well please" and claim God is fine with that. It's ridiculous to make the comparison. But, after all, when one is unable to defend one's position from Scripture OR justice, one is faced with either admitting one was wrong (John will go to his grave refusing this), or use ridiculous changes of subject to try to make a felon and hypocrite look like "one of the guys." Being a man of God isn't just this "teach twice a week" then you can break all God's rules and instructions the rest of the week thing. As one claiming to teach about God, he must DO STUFF- he must SHOW BY EXAMPLE what God wants us to do and avoid what God wants us to avoid. "DOING STUFF" is a lot more meaningful than just a classroom and charts- and teaches bigger lessons by DOING. MOST Christians get this easily. Seems only vpw holdouts have trouble with this. My God is not that small. There were plenty of Christians around who WERE teaching the right things. In fact, the Jesus People were reaching a lot of people before vpw INTERFERED and DIVERTED them, and BG Leonard was a lot more reluctant to preach in the USA after someone stole his material and claimed it was his own. vpw, rather than being a MOG, DIVERTED the MOGs of the time and IMPEDED GENUINE MOVEMENTS OF GOD. But, you know, don't let history stop you from re-imagining things some way that transforms an evil man into a MOG. We never claimed these things. In other words, he said "yo mama" again. We demonstrated Scripture agreed with us. Scripture may disagree with the ridiculous position you made up, but that's fine, it has nothing to do with us. Not that anyone really believed that- it was all a "weapon of mass distraction" so John could imagine some sort of moral victory and change the subject off of an evil hypocrite.

(Bump)

My thinking was, by discussing it and thinking logically, we could determine if an apparent contradiction was a contradiction IN FACT or if it merely APPEARED SO and a more complete understanding would resolve the conflict. The emphasis, of course, being on DISCUSSION and LOGICAL THINKING rather than a "vpw said it, that settles it, I believe it" approach which is so obviously unhealthy.