WordWolf

The guy went from school into divinity school, and went directly into preaching from school. He never traveled until he got his denomination to pay for the India trip. (Before that, he grew up on a farm and was a chronic shirker of his chores- according to what both his father and his brother said-and as recorded in TW:LiL. He chose preaching because it was the most comfortable living for the least amount of work among his options.) Matthew 23:1-12 (NASB) 1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4"They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5"But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their [a]phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6"They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8"But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10"Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11"But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12"Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

For those of you who may be unclear on the point, I'd like to spell it out for you. Go dig out your "Heart of the Way Corps" tape set. IIRC, that's 7 tapes. 2 of them have vpw speaking. Play them both, and listen when he speaks about LEAD. If you're falling asleep, start paying attention when he says "You're going to hitchhike to LEAD even if you NEVER make it." In a few minutes, he gets to the part where he addresses the danger of being raped hitchhiking to LEAD. "Well, you could be raped here in the Green Valley...." vpw makes it clear that- because one could POTENTIALLY be raped ANYWHERE, he sees no point in reducing the instructions that maximize the risk of being raped. Despite knowing-and addressing-that forcing them to hitchhike was a voluntary risk factor that led directly to some women being raped, vpw was determined to continue the practice, no matter HOW many of you it hurt. After all, it's not like he CARED about any of you. If a few wows or corps got raped or killed, well, there will be more of them next year. Just make sure "the ministry be not blamed" and move on. Let's never discuss the ministry SHOULD have been blamed because it had hazardous policies, just don't blame it anyway.

Here's a few more links. We've discussed BG Leonard a lot over the years. I can't find it now, but someone quoted from one of Leonard's books that sure sounded as if Leonard clearly believed Jesus did not pre-exist before his birth. And was scornful of the concept.

IIRC, vpw claimed some OTHER Christian spent the week prepping a sermon. (Can't have vpw making lots of mistakes.) vpw told him that's the problem-the devil read it all week and reverse-prepped the congregation. vpw said, by contrast, he stepped to the podium with no planning and no preparation. "That way, even the devil doesn't know what I'm going to teach on." Interesting how vpw is so lauded by current twi, yet his examples are so reviled. Can't EVER go up to the podium with the slightest spontaneity. Gotta let the devil have MONTHS to prepare for your "teaching".

I think the phrase you meant was a "whipping boy" (or in this case, girl), rather than a "whipping post." A whipping post itself received none of the punishment. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Whipping_boy "A whipping boy, was a young boy who was assigned to a young prince and was punished when the prince misbehaved or fell behind in his schooling." "Whipping boys were some of the earliest "fall guys"." https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Scapegoat

Let's see... Acts 8, KJV. 9But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: 10To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. 11And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. 18And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. 20But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 21Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. 22Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. 23For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Sounds like a fair comparison.

All right, technically, George rang in with the correct answer. However, he might want to let Hw/oB take this one in the interests of variety, but it's his choice.

No. This movie JUST won an Oscar, which should give you a much smaller "window" of time to work with. (Several nominations concerned this movie.)

"You know, you really don't need a forensics team to get to the bottom of this. If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

[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?]

Rocky 4?

Rocky 3. The rematch. Rocky, Paulie, and Apollo in the corner.

Have I mentioned lately that I'm actually getting quite a bit out of this thread? I don't just mean in a sense of psychology/sociology/criminology, but in a sense of Christian learning. The whole process, with people contributing, has hit on some pretty deep stuff here and there, and some pretty fundamental stuff here and there, and had some interesting things to say about both. I think the dialogue has had some really beneficial posts in them. Of course, I don't speak for everyone, but I'd expect most of us are getting SOMETHING from the process.

Actually, you're accusing others of what you do, which is an old, old tactic. The whole discussion proceeded from your faulty claims, which seem to keep changing. twi was a "safe harbor", but not in the sense of giving "safety", and not in the sense of acting as a "harbor." But, oh, if you follow twi's rules and the so-called "LAW of believing" (which is unbiblical and doesn't work), then you will have a safe feeling and be guaranteed safety. Of course, that doesn't hold for lots of people who tried it your way and were unsafe- and victimized by vpw HIMSELF or hurt or raped or killed (like on LEAD) because they followed his instructions (you MUST hitchike), so now you go on the attack and someone ELSE "speaks with forked tongue." Anyone else but you can see the difference between what you said we said, and what we actually said. YOU SAID " But if you base your life on the word of God, and you even make major decisions based on prayer and the word of God, and time and time again your prayers get answered and you escape negative situations, and you're blessed and peaceful, then it's not gambling, is it?" That's the mechanized approach vpw claimed worked, the "law" of believing, where you believe and you're guaranteed to get the DESIRED result-if you did it right. That's not how it works. Here's what Geisha said: "Well, then Jesus was a great failure, because He prayed with great drops of blood as sweat....and His cup didn't pass. Paul, who basically carried out the second half of Jesus ministry.....did not have his thorn in the flesh removed....and along with the other apostles was beaten and imprisoned time and again. With the exception of John....who was not sent to Club Med, the Apostles were martyred. Peter died a horrible death, we believe after watching his wife suffer a similar fate. You are going to be hard pressed not to find persecution, violence, or suffering, from creation on in scripture. The only person who was called upright and perfect before God...Job, went through a horrible trial of human suffering. He didn't do anything wrong....and you know what? He never found out why. Escaping "negative" situations is not what gives us peace. In fact, we are promised persecution and suffering for His namesake.....that is one of the promises of God. The peace that is promised us....stems from a relationship with Jesus Christ. It is about our safety in Him...not this life. According to scripture....God has a pretty poor track record of keeping people safe in this life. Jesus presents us blameless and spotless before God...not this world." Here's what I said: "So, so far, twi's "safe harbor" offers no PHYSICAL safety (took 20 pages to get there), and the only "safety" twi offers is a promise that prayers will result CONSISTENTLY in deliverance (which, as the rest of us know, contradicts Scripture, since praying men like Jesus, Paul, Peter etc prayed earnestly and did not escape physical peril nor execution.)" So, in plain English, we said your rules argued against Scripture and against how things were demonstrated to have worked. (So Crates gave modern examples.) ================================== The sad part is that you can't tell the difference between what we said and, as you put it, "Out of one side of your mouth you say that a true Christian should be getting persecuted and killed, but out of the other side of your mouth you say that TWI, who supposedly raped and killed and destroyed souls, is evil even though they did what YOU SAY should be happening in the lives of true Christians." We were saying that Christians have no guarantee to avoid strife, and in fact should be expecting to face persecution and suffering if necessary, that is because the world is evil and we must remain faithful even though the world does not want us to be. That doesn't mean that ALL suffering=persecution of Christians. It also doesn't mean that to get someone closer to God, you persecute him and he should thank you for it. Matthew 18:6-7. "6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! " Luke 17:1-2. " 1Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! 2It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Jesus knew that we will suffer-it's "impossible" to avoid it in the world- but the one that causes the Christians to suffer is NOT Christian NOR to be thanked- he's in a lot of trouble with God Almighty. So, going from Jesus' explanation, if an organization VICTIMIZES Christians and CAUSES them to suffer, then that organization. SINCE twi has victimized Christians, has caused them to stumble and suffer, and vpw himself raped and molested, twi was responsible for much evil, and vpw was personally responsible for much evil. To say otherwise is to display a sharp disagreement with Jesus Christ himself as to how things go. It's sad that you can't see the difference. It's disappointing that virtually everyone who reads this thread can see the difference, and can easily see us quoting and explaining the relevance of Scripture here, and learn thereby, but you still toss out vague insults about our understanding. There's an appalling contrast with what's evident and what you're claiming is here. Can it be stated any more simply than this?

For those of you following along from home, a popular question that started on page 1 is "a safe harbor? For who?" (All right, that's 2 questions, but they're related.) The answer on page 1 was "yes", but we've been trying to get an answer as to what the heck was meant by that. After all, some people's lives were ruined, some people died as a result of twi... So, supposedly, twi was "a safe harbor." But not in the sense the rest of us would consider "a safe harbor". We'd think of a location of some type where one could rest, secure that one was free of danger found outside the "safe harbor." For a ship's captain, that would mean outracing storms to a port where he could land his ship and know the storms could not affect it. For a traveler, that would mean a place to sleep and recover from traveling, confident he could do so without risks of harm interrupting his sleep and time there. (Once he left might be another story, but in a "safe harbor" he was secure. So, twi was not a "safe harbor" from physical safety. We knew people were hurt or killed in it. The explanation of what was meant (finally) doesn't shy from that, either. twi is PHYSICALLY about as secure as anyplace else. Other places, someone may engage in dangerous and sinful behavior ("trying to make a drug buy"), and be shot and killed instantly. twi is PHYSICALLY as safe as people engaging in dangerous and sinful behavior. That should be a warning sign to those who think of twi as a Christian organization and think those should offer some degree of physical safety, at least when on grounds or during meetings. So, supposedly, there is no such thing as "tangible safety" ANYWHERE. Personally, I think that's lowering one's standards. Many people have secure homes where one can live or visit and feel completely safe, and hotels and inns base their reputations and business on tangible safety on their grounds, and so on. So, so far, twi's "safe harbor" offers no PHYSICAL safety (took 20 pages to get there), and the only "safety" twi offers is a promise that prayers will result CONSISTENTLY in deliverance (which, as the rest of us know, contradicts Scripture, since praying men like Jesus, Paul, Peter etc prayed earnestly and did not escape physical peril nor execution. The only "safety" we've seen that holds up is FEELING SECURE, a "good feeling." vpw sneered at when ANYONE ELSE made claims of feeling good outside his organization, saying there was NO DIFFERENCE between a "good feeling" among other Christians vs lying on a Psychiatrist's couch. I'll agree this time with what he said- there was NO DIFFERENCE between the "good feeling" and "safe FEELING" in twi and that gotten from among the unbelievers in therapy. Which, of course, means twi offers nothing to those who want something from GOD that the CHRISTIANS are supposed to have, except for platitudes that claim what others have and twi lacks DOESN'T REALLY EXIST (like physical safety), and that twi is still somehow superior to Christians who supposedly HAVE physical safety because it doesn't teach the Trinity and teaches the dead are dead. If those are the only advantages, I'll take all the things twi lacks, and deal with the doctrinal problems. I can sleep better among REAL Christians even when I don't agree with them on every single issue. (Then again, I didn't agree on every single issue even IN twi, and I don't see that happening until Jesus returns.)

Mind you, lots of stuff has been traced to its original sources. If one manages to sit and name something that has not been traced, that's hardly proof that wasn't stolen. After all, a thief whom the Police have not found evidence against is still a thief-just a more careful thief. vpw's been proven to have ripped off material, both generally and specifically.

A long time ago, I heard that skeptics who are fooled by someone become the most hard-nosed dogmatists for a con, because they started from the position that they were UNABLE to be conned. They had absolutes and thought that they could see through ANY level of con NO MATTER WHAT- so all the conman had to do was exceed their threshold of skepticism, and then he didn't have to try so hard to keep his con going. They already went from "skeptic" to "conned victim." It is not a coincidence that the "outer layers" of twi (the heavily-controlled tapes, books, ROAs) were the most carefully-controlled parts of twi. Those are the levels we all saw from week to week. Any skepticism any of us have, that's the parts we expose them to. Those steps were composed with lots and lots of material from specific Christians who vpw considered tops-Bullinger, Leonard, Stiles, Kenyon, others, often without attribution or LIMITED attribution (mentioning one attribution and leaving another unstated)- and with lots of sincere Christians at the local level who really wanted to do their best for God. Once some of us were more thoroughly fleeced as to the legitimacy of twi ("no counterfeit could produce so much legitimate teaching"- sure it could- just grab work of good Christians, then spit it back out and don't tell anyone that's exactly what you're doing. Then add lots of showmanship- vpw was a HELL of a showman- and voila! Convincing con that LOOKS like a legitimate Christian movement) we went off into deeper levels of twi. The next layers had a LOT less "meat" from conventional Christians to fool us- because we were ALREADY fooled, and MORE fooled the further on we moved. The wow program- godly? Well, it was presented as so, and the participants intended to serve God, but the program was designed haphazardly, putting young men and women together into one household, sending them into strange places, some of them dangerous, and requiring them to go door to door, even in the most dangerous neighborhoods. Small wonder reports came back that some of the wows were having sex with each other, or were in physical danger in their assignments. What was the "support" from the "denomination" sending them out? They CHARGED the wows for going out, they required them to supply their OWN transportation to their assignment, they required they cover ALL their own expenses- housing, food, sundries, and assigned them to run classes which brought money in to twi. When the classes were assembled (and money was paid), the organization sent copies of videotapes, which were sent back as soon as the class was over. (All class costs were charged "retail" to the new students for the Foundational, and the Intermediate was charged HIGHER than retail.) The wow program was designed to turn a financial profit- and it did. The way corps program- godly? Well, it was presented as so, and the participants intended to serve God, but the program was set up piecemeal. The priority- to quote vpw himself- "YOU CAN STAY AS LONG AS YOUR MONEY HOLDS!- and that was for when the program was unformed. Christians intended TO WORK FOR TWI- did TWI subsidize their education? A) they were charged for their program B) they worked during their program (for which they were charged) C) the classes could all easily fit in 1 year-the college division certainly did, for the same classes D) significant amounts of the remaining time were for things like RUNS and exercise E) their housing was in tiny cubicles. College students would have found their space tiny. (That might be sensible, say, for housing someone for a long weekend, but for even a WEEK that's confining, and for an extended stay, it's ridiculous.) The way corps program was designed to turn a financial profit- and it did. And that's not even addressing how the corps was carefully sifted for sex victims by vpw. We've addressed that lots of times- how vpw used the "birth to the corps" papers to look for victims, even spotted holding it in his hand when trying to target a woman, or quoting from it when trying to convincer her God wanted her to have sex with vpw. The papers, the location (vpw had physical places set up to target women- one man doesn't need multiple places to sleep on ONE campus where he has vehicles to travel the campus as well as vehicles with beds for when he's on the road), the cadre (people were used to contrive excuses for the woman to be alone with vpw at one of these places, and monitor them afterwards). The most carefully-constructed parts of the corps were the payment structure and the cadre to arrange vpw's victims. Those who actually spent time with vpw in unstructured times saw a man NOYHING LIKE the man we heard of back home, back in the taped classes, or up on the stage at the ROA. They saw a man who was given to immature rages at a moment's notice, who spent all day feeding fleshly vices of drink and tobacco, with a filthy mouth and the moral behavior of a gutter rat (how many Christian ministries would tolerate having a minister who copped a feel of women?), and who, when he taught, would often teach some great teachings using the materials of other men. If there's any doubt, he had a location where he stockpiled books from other Christians, and he would privately mine them for "his" teachings. A handful of people saw those. I spoke personally to one of the few people who had access to it-which, of course, was restricted, since it was the keystone to his entire con.) Can a conman go on for hours and hours with legitimate Bible, sound completely legitimate, even shed tears while preaching, and still be a complete conman? They can- and he did. Any convincing conman, or any convincing actor, can summon up such a display. Shakespeare's fans are well aware of this. A character in Hamlet is an actor, who is asked to do a recital about part of the Trojan War. When speaking about Hecuba, he sheds tears. Was it because he personally cared about Hecuba, or did he so completely throw himself into the acted role that a tear was the obvious response? To anyone not still conned, the answers are all obvious. Any decent actor can make ANYTHING sound deep. Actors have performed exercises where a shopping list, gibberish, or silly sentences were spoken with great fervor. Add to that an actual set of substantial materials, and any actor worth the name could make himself sound devout, and the originator of any teaching or research. vpw SOUNDED LIKE he really believed what he taught- and this was a man who taught that a man was not supposed to "help himself" to a woman- with verse reference, then turned around and helped himself to women. Did he believe it was wrong when he was doing it- and thus deliberately sinning against God- or did he believe it was ok with God when he was doing it- and thus deliberately lying when teaching it was wrong? vpw SOUNDED LIKE he loved the word of God-but if it really mattered to him in his heart, why spend most of his days contradicting it so flagrantly? (Even while teaching- how many Christian ministries permit ministers to sip alcohol from cups of alcohol WHILE TEACHING?) Scamming people as an auto mechanic would have required a LOT more work, and been a LOT easier to expose, and a LOT easier to criminally prosecute. People EXPECT a salesman to try to con you. Who expected a minister to con you, to fondle women as he did, to molest women, drug and rape them as he did? What minister is expected to sweat and grunt through hard physical labor like a farmer or auto mechanic? Becoming a minister allowed him to work less than the other options he considered- and even his own father said he was lazy on the farm, and even his own brother admitted he ditched his chores all the time. So, less labor and less dirty work, and more trust and authority, and eventually lots of chances to have unrestricted access to people naive enough to trust him. vpw conned many people quite well. In hindsight it's rather obvious- unless one is still in the con.

You don't understand ALL English, because everybody ELSE has no trouble understanding my posts, and you're saying I'm trying to "numb" a mind- instead of encourage thinking. You see a longer post and categorically slap a label "long-winded", and you confuse refutations of your points with "damage control." So, sorry, you're unable to read my full posts with comprehension. Actually, you're advocating SILENCE on the subjects of evil deeds if vpw did them, and SILENCE holding him responsible for the damage he wrought. That's why the attempts to change the subject and go off into digressions on music when the rest of us discuss an evil man who did evil deeds. I'm sorry you're unable to tell the difference between quoting Scriptures and explaining them, and espousing their principles, and the actions of the handful of Jews who had Jesus crucified. It's amazing YOU'RE the one bringing up concepts like "selective reasoning, personal bias, reluctance to consider some ideas, and programming to an agenda." It's sad you're the only one who can't see why it's amazing. And hypocritical on your own part. I'm thankful for a lot. I don't express thankfulness to God by covering the evil deeds of evil men who prey upon innocent Christians. We seem to be thankful in very different ways. We certainly express our thankfulness differently. Actually, this current thread seems to highlight rather dramatically some dysfunctional thought patterns and so on. I read an outrageous comment that I felt was overdue to be addressed from Scripture rather than from platitude- and I did so. The discussion that followed included a DIFFERENT outrageous comment that someone else felt was overdue to be addressed. Don't blame either of us if you make outrageous comments and people show they're ridiculous and outrageous. If you don't want your posts refuted, post more logically or refrain from posting when you're feeling the need to espouse a silly position. I didn't "overreact". Everybody EXCEPT YOU learned that, although you-and others- claim we can't properly call someone "evil" because their deeds were evil, Scripture holds the opposite position. We all gained in knowledge. (I certainly did- I didn't know there were specific verses to address that before that thread.) Your responses could have included things like "I was not aware the Bible said that. Thank you for increasing my lnowledge" or anything that indicated that you'd change your mind to agree with the Bible. Instead, when faced with saying the opposite of the Bible, you entrenched yourself deeper into your position and used all sorts of gambits to change the subject, make this personal, etc. The rest of us, despite all the twisting, have all learned things in the threads the past few weeks. It's a shame you haven't. You're busy trying to look like the hero and defend vpw from even the most Biblical of charges against him. You're experiencing a different reality than the rest of us. Why didn't I look at someone who espoused error, and decide to keep silent and leave it alone? Why put forth the truth when someone's putting forth the opposite? Why post things-especially things you don't want to see posted, which means you're going to label them all sorts of things they are not? It's not about you or me, it's about Truth, and sometimes it's specifically about what it says in the Bible. It would be obsessive if that's all I did all day. It's a little scary that there are people who will show up and try to defend vpw's reputation no matter how well-documented any of his evil deeds are that are being discussed. I find THAT obsessive. Can't face the idea the Bible calls such a man "evil"? Can't face that his own words show his intent, down the years? Can't face that vpw put forth that himself was some great one, when instead he was an evil man who used the works of Christians to pretend he was producing Christian works? I noticed that you never tried to dispute any pieces of actual HISTORY we discuss. There's just this flat "it's speculation" after we've discussed it and documented it. If you had something to actually support your claim, it would make sense to actually present that rather than just make flat claims. BTW, you're finally, at least, claiming I said what I said. 1) Old man Wierwille never taught safe boundaries. (We know what all his children said, and how they turned out.) We also have some testimony as to his own behavior. 2) vpw WAS a bully. Lots of people have testified to his bullying. People have known him as a bully his entire adult life. He bullied people all through twi's history and only stopped when he was too sickly to bully anyone anymore, not because his character improved. 3) Actually, I don't think he set a goal to scam people in 1942. BEFORE 1942, he selected ministry as a career because he thought it would be easy. In 1953, he found materials that could potentially be used to scam people-and his thoughts went to scamming people- whicb he did that very year when he lied to people about Leonard's class. vpw later scammed people and assigned a date of 1942 to his scam. In the late 1960s, he saw some women less restrictive about sex- and his thoughts went to "how do I get them to have sex with me?"- and he made that a long-term goal. (He may have been planning for this through the decades, but I don't have hard evidence that his old congregation fired him for inappropriate sexual behavior, so I'll stick with what I can clearly document.) He never "deserved" any kind of harem, and didn't get one. He surrounded himself with young people, and predatorially set out to single out one, then another, to victimize sexually. If he had a "harem", he wouldn't have needed to waste all that effort. 4) He was chronically drunk, and usually on Drambuie. People who had never heard of Drambuie were sent to get MULTIPLE BOTTLES for him for when he was coming to town for A FEW DAYS. He regularly carried a coffee mug around which had Drambuie in it. He had whole procedures worked out on how to hide alcohol-breath. (Put a strong mint in your mouth, break it in your mouth.) People misunderstood that, and broke mints in 1/2 to have a dish ready for him whenever he was teaching. NONE OF THAT IS SPECULATION. What's obsessive is to have read all of that, all the eyewitness accounts of all of those, then turn around and say they don't exist, that vpw was great because Jesus is great and saved us all, so vpw can sin all he wants and destroy lives and it's insignificant because he had salvation. It's unhealthy to read the verses that explain the opposite and STILL say that, too. As long as people revere the DAMAGED doctrines of a damaged man (the errors like the false "LAW" of believing, how one can exploit the Christians and it's ok because we have salvation, the insertion of sexual perspectives on non-sexual Bible accounts, vpw's ministry will continue to HURT people. Many people have gotten deliverance from them, and are still Christians, still respect the Bible, without the warped patterns of twi impeding their walk before God. Are you really going to spend all the time you have left defending an evil dead hypocrite's legacy?

Here we see an excellent example of two of the problems of a twi/vpw "education." 1) A tendency to project a lot more sex into the Bible 2) An inability to read what's written because one is convinced they know the right of everything. It did not say she was "lying in his bosom." Read what YOU just quoted. It says his servants had that idea. The servants wanted to get him some young woman to use for sex. This is what they thought, planned for, and expected. David didn't go along with it that far- he didn't stop them from sending a woman in, but he refused to sin against God again, and so he didn't have sex with her outside of his marriage. I Kings 1:4 (NASB) 4The girl was very beautiful; and she became the king's nurse and served him, but the king did not cohabit with her. I Kings 1:4 NIV. "The woman was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no sexual relations with her." I Kings 1:4 ESV. "The young woman was very beautiful, and she was of service to the king and attended to him, but the king knew her not." I Kings 1:4 CEV."They brought her to David, and she took care of him. But David did not have sex with her. " I Kings 1:4 ASV."And the damsel was very fair; and she cherished the king, and ministered to him; but the king knew her not. " (etc, etc) I Kings 15:5. "Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." That's a belief that persists only among vpw-trained people. The Bible does not support that claim. Genesis 19:4-5. 4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. The men of Sodom may have been perverts and sex maniacs, but they knew that one man or many men can't impregnate a man or men. If you tried reading the Bible and ditching all the vpw-invented preconceived notions, you'd have discovered this long ago- vpw's claim is based on speculation and the idea that it's plausible God would use a miracle to make a virgin conceive, but that it's implausible that a young man could refrain from having sex with his pregnant wife until after she's delivered her baby. A man caring enough to abstain from sex was too big a leap of faith for vpw to make. When I have some time to kill, I should go over the timeline with a fine tooth comb, and see if David was married to each at the time and her only, or unmarried when he was dancing the horizontal with the non-wives. I'm not going to guess about something like that, and it's obviously not a rush job. I'm sorry for you that you're unable to read my full posts with comprehension, and have to resort to "the fox and the sour grapes" to deal with it. Perhaps if you read the Bible with understanding more, you'd manage it. I hardly write novellas when I post, so most people have no difficulty following along. Since I post verses along with discussion OF the verses, it's longer to read the posts, but FAR easier to follow along because I leave everything in plain sight. For those with average reading comprehension abilities, it makes things easier rather than harder. Sorry you can't keep up. Maybe if you split a post into shorter readings, say, a paragraph at a time, you'd be able to understand what I post. Actually, this makes official something that seemed pretty clear earlier- that you reply to posts you don't even understand. All the time. Thanks for making this obvious for those who hadn't figured it out yet. That's not what the seminary students I've interacted with say. In fact, offhand, or "from the hip", they could keep up with any discussion on the Bible we've ever had at the GSC, and would out-perform many posters. ex-twi people are not nearly as learned about the Bible as they think they are.

It's still a little glitchy. I made 2 threads, "vp and me in Wonderland" and "the way:living in Wonderland." I did a title search for "wonderland", and got 1 result: "Winter Wonderland." I did a second title search and added my name as thread author. It said there were 2 results-but only displayed the "vp and me in Wonderland" thread.

I Kings 15:5. "Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." A) The historical dates-and precise age-of David at different events has a disputed range. "They happened between x and y." You somehow have a source that pins the age and year down? Please supply it. (This puts him over 50 and having kids like Solomon.) B) Even IF David was older, it hardly negates my point- good-looking, popular, rich king. C) It is a little disturbing to be discussing David in the Bible and for someone to keep imagining we're discussing vpw. vpw was not named in the Bible. He was not around when any part was written. He was not one of the heroes of the Bible. And yet some people can't talk about them for a few minutes without trying to say vpw was like them or they were like vpw. D) Likewise, David, again, was not like vpw. David committed ONE, count them, ONE, act of sin against God. (I'm counting the entire affair where he stole another man's wife and had the man killed as one event because the Bible counts it as one event.) For this, he suffered heavily, and the consequences lasted hundreds of years. David repented his action, begged God's forgiveness, and spent the next few DECADES on the straight and narrow. We know this because God told us that EXCEPT for that, David walked the straight and narrow. Read the Psalms. David's sorrow and regret were deep, and were followed by DECADES of right action. None of it erased his sin, but-excepting the Bathsheba travesty- he was neither a sex maniac, a rapist, a molester, etc. You have accused him of being so from nothing more than a desire to see him like vpw in some ways, excusing vpw for being like vpw. You said "Even at the end of his life he had them find Abishag to "keep him warm"." So, your claim is that David instructed his people to get him Abishag to go to bed with him. (We know this is the kind of thing vpw would do- did Scripture say DAVID did it?) I Kings 1:1-4. (KJV) 1Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat. 2Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat. 3So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. 4And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not. I Kings 1:1-4 (NASB) 1Now King David was old, advanced in age; and they covered him with clothes, but he could not keep warm. 2So his servants said to him, "Let them seek a young virgin for my lord the king, and let her attend the king and become his nurse; and let her lie in your bosom, that my lord the king may keep warm." 3So they searched for a beautiful girl throughout all the territory of Israel, and found Abishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the king. 4The girl was very beautiful; and she became the king's nurse and served him, but the king did not cohabit with her. 1. The idea was that of the servants. 2. The entire proceeding was that of the servants. 3. David didn't try to have sex with this woman. This should not surprise people who already remembered that David was properly married, and to have done so would have been a sin against God. God told us that David straightened up and flew right after he recovered from his sins against God concerning Bathsheba and Uriah. 4. The whole idea that David had sex with Abishag seems to be unique to vpw and those he taught. I Kings 1:4 NIV. "The woman was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no sexual relations with her." I Kings 1:4 ESV. "The young woman was very beautiful, and she was of service to the king and attended to him, but the king knew her not." CEV."They brought her to David, and she took care of him. But David did not have sex with her. " ASV."And the damsel was very fair; and she cherished the king, and ministered to him; but the king knew her not. " (etc, etc) vpw-and those who he taught-seem to have this obsession with sex and seeing many Biblical accounts allowing for more sex than a plain read would indicate. (I've begun entire threads where we examined some other examples, and they proved to rely purely on speculation and the word of vpw.) So, again, vpw the sex felon (he was not charged, but he committed multiple acts of rape and molestation, and each was a felony whether or not the police caught him) was not David. vpw was not like David. David was not like vpw. David committed a hideous sin and spent the rest of his life "clean", not sinning, and performing right actions. Now, let's get to the more formal smokescreen... John, if you actually gave a tinker's cuss for 20th and 21st century victims of rape and molestation, you might actually convince us this is actual concern for Bathsheba's well-being. But when you can actually reach accounts of living people and actually communicate with them, the compassion is lacking. As to Bathsheba herself, we only have what the Bible says and what the Bible does not say. Her only protest is "I'm pregnant." God knows whether she consented or did not consent. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate she was coerced, or did not consent. Therefore, anything along those lines is SPECULATION. We have nothing to indicate she's significantly troubled by having a rich, good-looking, popular king want to have sex with her OR to make her a Queen. We do know that her child was killed as the result of sin. Now, if one ONLY looked at that, what are the possibilities? A) David's sin resulted in the death of Bathsheba's child- God required him as punishment for David's sin, and Bathsheba was innocent. God robbed Bathsheba of her child for something she was innocent of. B) David AND BATHSHEBA'S SIN resulted in the death of Bathsheba's child-God required him as punishment for the sin they BOTH committed. The other penalities were levied on David because he had more responsibility. If one is prepared to accept an unjust God, who punishes the righteous with the wicked, the first possibility is acceptable. The rest of us consider it senseless, illogical, and inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. Is there any reason we have to think she felt the victim in this? There is nothing in God's Word to indicate so. If it's given by GOD, then we'd expect He would include that when everything else is being said. Anything about Bathsheba being "forced" into all this is all speaking where God was silent. vpw himself said "Where the Word of God remains silent, he who speaks is a fool." He also would call it "private interpretation", which none of Scripture is given for. Sorry John, but your attempt to fog the issue just exposes more deficiencies in your understanding of Scripture. You're not even following vpw's own maxims for reading it. This is the second time I've refuted your claim from Scripture. If you still insist on arguing against Scripture on this, I recommend you take it off of this thread. You might look around and discover that you can actually learn something on this while not looking among vpw and people he taught. (It's probably the only way to escape these sex-centric teachings we were all subjected to.) Ok, now this is just being silly. vpw was not hanging around Israel when David was sinning against God and against Uriah. So God didn't dedicate verses in I Kings to vpw and his sins. vpw was not around Palestine during Paul's travels. There's a book of Philemon about Onesimus, but not a book about vpw. We were told Alexander the coopersmith did much evil, there's no such warning about vpw the sex maniac. This is as logical as saying "The Bible doesn't warn us about Jim Jones by name- therefore God didn't disapprove of his actions. The Bible doesn't warn us about David Koresh by name-therefore God didn't disapprove of his actions." And so on. As I said, this is being silly. As to the more general warnings, there's plenty of verses warning us of people like vpw deceiving and hurting God's people. Geisha has been posting them for pages and pages. The rest of us have actually noticed. "Mention?" You passed along gossip that ONE PERSON said. I can find ONE PERSON that says that "where vpw walked, the earth shook." Even the weakest claims wait for TWO OR THREE WITNESSES, because God has always been well aware that you can always find ONE nut to put forth the most outrageous claims. I find it amusing, John, that you can confuse vpw's sins with David, wonder why vpw's missing from the Bible, and generally try to claim men of God are all sex maniacs to try to make vpw look like a man of God rather than an evil man, a wicked man, and a sex maniac...... And then say "We'll see who's really being 'fooled.'" Nearly everyone can already see that and don't have to "wait".....