WordWolf

"Do I look like a stupid man?" "What?" "Do I look like an idiot? Do I look like a moron? Do I look like a buffoon?" "Hey, no-one's forcing you to go to SuperCuts." "I can never do nothing!" "We're gonna start with a different game tonight. It's called "Bombshells." In the suburbs, it's called "You might wanna sit down for this. It's a shocker." In the hood, it's called "Oh, no you didn't." "At the factory, I deal with ex-cons, substance abusers, and sexual harassers. And I'm not just talking about my mom. " "From now on, we're home schooling you. Whatever we don't know, you don't know. When did the Korean War start? I don't know, and neither do you!" "So this is the first wedding you've ever planned?" "Yeah, and you're wearing a white dress, so we both stretched the truth a little."

"Do I look like a stupid man?" "What?" "Do I look like an idiot? Do I look like a moron? Do I look like a buffoon?" "Hey, no-one's forcing you to go to SuperCuts." "I can never do nothing!" "We're gonna start with a different game tonight. It's called "Bombshells." In the suburbs, it's called "You might wanna sit down for this. It's a shocker." In the hood, it's called "Oh, no you didn't." "At the factory, I deal with ex-cons, substance abusers, and sexual harassers. And I'm not just talking about my mom. "

I knew I'd heard the one about the bar somewhere. This is from "Gilligan's Island." Ginger Grant was Agent 36-24-36. IIRC, the "actor" quotes are from Phil Silvers as Harold Hecuba, doing the musical of "Hamlet."

That's it. I didn't even get a chance to get into the "White Devil" business.

"You know, gingivitis is the number one cause of all tooth decay." "Worry not, my brother. For I will be as a fly on the wall - a grain of salt in the ocean. I will move amongst them like a transparent...THING." "You must be the Monopoly Guy. Thanks for the Free Parking." "This is a lovely room of death." ""Wunderbar!", he exclaimed with great relish." "Equinsu ocha! Equinsu ocha!"

"You know, gingivitis is the number one cause of all tooth decay." "Worry not, my brother. For I will be as a fly on the wall - a grain of salt in the ocean. I will move amongst them like a transparent...THING." "You must be the Monopoly Guy. Thanks for the Free Parking." "This is a lovely room of death."

A list of promises from the beginning, and the reality that unfolded.... -------------------------------------------------------------- Establishes and maintains a positive attitude became "never ever ever say anything less than 100% positive or you will be roundly condemned for "confessing a negative." makes life meaningful became "twi will become your life and assign you meaning- running our classes, attending our meeting, buying our magazine and tapes...." Overcomes worry and fear became "unless you do exactly as we say, the devil will get you in an instant", which means twi'ers inside twi have more worry and fear than everyone else (especially when added to point 1.) Promotes prosperity and health became "you will not dare to admit less than 100% health and prosperity, or we will condemn you and blame you for failing to get either or both" Explains apparent bible contradictions became "you will agree with whatever we say about the Bible, even if that contradicts what we used to teach about it" Develops more harmony in the home became "your family will all carry this out 100% or you will have strife" Enables you to separate truth from error became "what we say is truth, is truth. What we say is error, is error." Disciplines the mind by believing became "believe whatever we say, and ignore anything that contradicts it" Teaches how to pray effectively became "pray the way we say, and if you don't get what you wanted, then you either redefine what you asked for so that it sounds like you got it, or we will blame you"

Enables you to separate truth from error – switches to – accept that whatever twi says is truth, and whatever disagrees with them is error.

[i was thinking how absolutely shameless the remnant of vpw defenders can get, willing to redefine terms, to manufacture things, to sweep anything vpw did under a rug while making up faults of others and magnifying them, all as smoke-screens to try to make their deeds look as evil as vpw's. Then it hit me- part of this is still "regurgitate anything vpw said." vpw was quite fond of denigrating any field he did not understand- with the exceptions of any practitioners who were in twi. Then, suddenly, the field was respectable- and the twi practitioner was called the greatest practitioner in the world. This happened, among other things, with vpw and the fields of Psychology, Psychiatry, and people like Tony C, who appeared on the cover of "Heart" magazine and was interviewed for it. vpw didn't understand Psychology and Psychiatry, so he denigrated them-until Tony C joined twi. BTW, I spoke to Tony a long time ago. He seemed quite reasonable both as a Christian and as a Psychologist. But twi'ers who never read that Heart Magazine or never met Tony were still repeating the twi mantra that Psychology was of no use. It's amazing how many fields of study were useless according to twi. I also heard someone denigrated people who work on the news. Outside of twi circles, it's rather shocking that there are Christians who are ready to dismiss entire fields of Psychology and Psychiatry. It's more shocking when one knows many Christians who practice either, and many more who have been helped by them. In the last 20-30 years alone, some considerable advances have been made in Psychiatry. It's shocking how all the people who denigrate Psychiatry don't even know the main difference between Psychiatry and Psychology. Most people nowadays, including most Christians, are aware there are some chemical imbalances and occasional structural problems in the central nervous systems of a minority of people. "Devil spirits?" No, birth defects and the like. To misdiagnose a problem with someone's biology as "devil spirits" is as sensible as trying to fix a broken arm with "driving the demon out" or the like. A competent Psychiatrist then attempts to rebalance the brain chemistry or otherwise correct the biological problem with medication. Sometimes it takes a lot to get to a solution, sometimes it works pretty soon. Generally, Psychology comes in very handy once the chemicals are balanced- so the person can learn better coping mechanisms and join the rest of us in productive lives. How effective can it be? I knew one Christian who seemed 100% normal and not unusual in any way, who was on psychiatric medication that helped her stay that way. (She seemed more normal than me, certainly.) As for Psychology being of use or other than "devil possession", it's sad that some people don't know any better in an educated society like the US. There's plenty of people- adults, children- who are working with a mental health care professional to help correct problems developing from trauma experienced as an adult, or -more commonly- as a child, and learning to adjust and move on with their lives. If you had a family member or a friend who'd survived abuse as a child and was seeing a Psychologist, you'd be a lot slower to denigrate the help they and thousands of other people get each year. twi certainly could have used a few Psychologists on staff. With vpw and others inflicting psychological damage on people, actually having someone who could try to REPAIR the damage would have helped some people, and may have prevented some suicides of people vpw sent home. Don't forget, it was standard practice for vpw to send anyone home if they had some sort of psychological problem. Putting people alone on a bus is the opposite of actually HELPING them. Small wonder some got lost on the way home, or committed suicide. Trying to make Billy Graham look bad because he lacks vpw's uneducated bias against mental healthcare professionals? That's an under-educated approach, and a rather clumsy attempt to make the man look as evil as vpw. Billy Graham conducted himself as a Christian, and made successful efforts to treat his fellow Christians (and non-Christians) like the Bible says we are supposed to. If you can't tell the difference between people with unclean spirits and people with psychiatric disorders, you have no business discussing EITHER. Some Christians can easily tell them apart. Actually, I've seen non-Christians with no training in Psychology who could tell them apart. If you think the sole function of medication prescribed by Psychiatrists is to "incapacitate the mind", then you have a shocking ignorance of what they do. Rather than incapacitate the patient, the goal- and often it is reached successfully but no medical field is 100% effective- is for the patient to resume normal activities and be a regular, functioning, contributing member of society. I've known Christians for whom that was effective. If you want to limit yourself to the lack of knowledge vpw had on the subject, that's your business, but it's pretty evident to any educated person that it's a glaring deficiency in your education. Which, all things considered, is ANOTHER evil thing vpw did. If vpw hadn't ruthlessly condemned the fields of people who could have helped his victims, more would have gotten help sooner, and fewer would have committed suicide as a direct or indirect result of their exposure to vpw. Not like he cared- what were a few more victims to him? He just made sure to label them and say it was their own weakness and "devil spirits" that killed them, then he went back to making more victims.

Is this Tom Petty's "Refugee"?

I've been wondering if this is "War Games."

In my opinion, you never "got it" about this site, but nobody ever guaranteed everyone would. In fact, it's pretty much expected some people would not. Be excellent to each other anyway.

"Red Ball One, bag is leaking." Hannibal once relayed this message to Murdock. It meant one of the team was injured. In this case, it was BA, and Murdock is the same blood type, thus he needed a transfusion... "Traaaaaashbags! I want traaaaaashbags!" I loved this episode. They infiltrated a prison- Murdock was a psychatric patient, BA was a deaf-mute, Hannibal was his translator, and an effeminate hairdresser, and face was a prison Psychologist, Dr Pepper. Pepper recommended therapy like haircuts, and gut the prison to spring for hairdryers and lawn-chairs as a cheap barber chair. Murdock kept screaming for trashbags all episode, and quieted for a few hours if they gave him one. They escaped the prison by using the hairdryers and trashbags to make hot air balloons, which they attached to the lawnchairs. "The key to any con is to place the mark in a position where he or she thinks reward will come or harm will be avoided if he or she does exactly as told by the conman." "Hey, I couldn't help noticing that jacket's beginning to dry out and crack. Ever try tanning butter?" "Only on pancakes. It tastes pretty yucky." "Huh?" "But it did turn my tongue a nice shade of brown." Murdock's leather pilot jacket. "The bigger they are, The harder they fall." "The bigger they are, the harder they hit!" "It's over, Smith. You lost." "And I was having such a nice day." "Don't worry, he'll give us a minute like he always does." "You have thirty seconds to give up your weapons before we open fire." "Got to give the man credit. He's learning." Hannibal and Stockwell. "What's gonna happen?" "Looks like we're gonna crash." "C'mon, really, what's gonna happen?" "Looks like we're gonna crash. And die." IIRC, the episode Murdock saved a plane by making a controlled crash. It was the one episode BA woke up in the plane.

Right.

"I think I'll have the fish." (After all that saying he hated fish and hearing he could have meat and potatoes or whatever.) I didn't recognize the sheriff/deputy quote, myself.

"Red Ball One, bag is leaking." "Traaaaaashbags! I want traaaaaashbags!" "The key to any con is to place the mark in a position where he or she thinks reward will come or harm will be avoided if he or she does exactly as told by the conman." "Hey, I couldn't help noticing that jacket's beginning to dry out and crack. Ever try tanning butter?" "Only on pancakes. It tastes pretty yucky." "Huh?" "But it did turn my tongue a nice shade of brown." "The bigger they are, The harder they fall." "The bigger they are, the harder they hit!" "It's over, Smith. You lost." "And I was having such a nice day." "Don't worry, he'll give us a minute like he always does." "You have thirty seconds to give up your weapons before we open fire." "Got to give the man credit. He's learning." "What's gonna happen?" "Looks like we're gonna crash." "C'mon, really, what's gonna happen?" "Looks like we're gonna crash. And die."

I reject that paper's obsession with trying to shoehorn ALL male dysfunctional behavior into some variation of latent or overt homosexuality. I think that's like saying EVERY repair job needs to use a hammer as the tool to repair it. The other point- that people can get frozen in an incomplete state of development and remain immature in behavior as a result- now, that's been demonstrated and is pretty reliable Psychology. (Notice how this paper is decades old? Some of it was worth keeping, some was not.) We saw young Vic dealing with a harsh father who was swift to punish, but slow to praise or even to relate to his kids. Did that have any affect on Vic? As a teenager, he seemed obsessed with all the ways to draw attention to himself- he was a bully, a braggart, and a show-off. Armchair Psychologists generally would say he was still trying to get the attention and validation he never got as a child. Old Man Wierwille never taught his kids healthy boundaries, and Vic never learned them on his own. So, he went around trying to get attention and validation, and that became INGRAINED BEHAVIOR over time. So now he was trying to get attention and validation because he was trying to get attention and validation, because that's what he did, that's how he saw his own behavior. So, Vic went into ministry as a career choice. He didn't believe the Bible was the word of God. His motivation was to have a roomful of people hang on his every word. (In Vic's upbringing, that was the ultimate way to get respect and attention.) It was never about God, it was always about Vic and feeding his ego. It's been said rape is not primarily a crime of sex- it's a crime of POWER. The rapist commits the crime more for the sense of power he gets than for anything else. I don't think there's any evidence that vpw loved or liked men. I think he may have respected a few, but the REAL object of vpw's love was HIMSELF. That's why he was more interested in his vices than in setting a good example, and in seeking attention rather than giving the credit that was his moral and legal responsibility, and giving the healthy leadership a supposed minister is supposed to give. Then again, vpw could not give what he himself did not have. He could repeat back what others had taught him, but he could not teach healthy spiritual living by example, since he didn't have it.

"Red Ball One, bag is leaking." "Traaaaaashbags! I want traaaaaashbags!" "The key to any con is to place the mark in a position where he or she thinks reward will come or harm will be avoided if he or she does exactly as told by the conman." "Hey, I couldn't help noticing that jacket's beginning to dry out and crack. Ever try tanning butter?" "Only on pancakes. It tastes pretty yucky." "Huh?" "But it did turn my tongue a nice shade of brown." "The bigger they are, The harder they fall." "The bigger they are, the harder they hit!"

"Red Ball One, bag is leaking." "Traaaaaashbags! I want traaaaaashbags!" "The key to any con is to place the mark in a position where he or she thinks reward will come or harm will be avoided if he or she does exactly as told by the conman."

Congratulations. Especially congratulations on being able to share it with your family.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misandrist http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misandrist?show=0&t=1295717552 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misandrist http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/misandry http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=misandrist As soon as I read this post, I said to myself "of course there is- misogyny is hatred of females, misandry is hatred of males, just like "polygny" means marrying multiple wifes and "polyandry" means marrying multiple husbands." ("Polygamy" means marrying multiple spouses but doesn't distinguish between husbands or wives, and is usually TAKEN to mean the same as "polygny".) Hey, in high school, I ran into an English teacher with defects in her vocabulary, also. The class had to come up with a synonym and an antonym for every vocabulary word. The word was "dilettante". I came up with the antonym "pundit" (a learned man). The teacher said no, that a pundit is a person who's good with making up puns- which is a common misconception. I looked it up soon after- but I didn't ask to leave the room to reference it immediately, which would have shown that a nearby collegiate dictionary had the correct definition of "pundit." Don't underestimate the value of a good collegiate dictionary. If you take care of it, it will last you a lifetime. Or at least 30 years for a paper copy and possibly longer for a digital copy, depending on whether the format is still readable. On another subject, what did this have to do with the thread's topic?

This is "Family Guy." They showed this in commercials a LOT.

Now, once again, let those of us who are able attempt to approach this thread's topic (which is not social gender relations) in a logical, and possibly Scriptural, fashion. Too bad some of us skipped over the initial post, eager to emotionally react and call it emotional and angry, rather than actually READ THE CONTENT. The rest of us saw that it contains the following: " All right. So, what does the Bible say on this subject of "good man"? Luke 6:45. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart. Proverbs 12:2 A good man will obtain favor from the LORD, But He will condemn a man who devises evil." For the sake of brevity, I didn't even make an attempt to be encyclopedic in listing the verses. (I know my posts can be long, so I try not to make them longer than I think is needed to address the subject.) Otherwise, other verses would have come up. Psalm 37:23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way. Matthew 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. Acts 11:24 For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. Romans 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. =============== So, we have a poster saying "Nobody is a good man." Now, if the poster claimed to disbelieve the Bible overall, the verses would be irrelevant-this person would consider them null and devoid of authority. But for a Bible believer, these verses make the matter plain- there is such thing as a "good man." The Bible also says there's such things as evil men: Proverbs 24:20 For there shall be no reward to the evil man; the candle of the wicked shall be put out. Proverbs 29:6 In the transgression of an evil man there is a snare: but the righteous doth sing and rejoice. (Also check out the words of Jesus Christ above, from the Gospels.) (I have no plans on being encyclopedic here- I think the point is made already.) ====================== Now, let me save some time. The response can either be an EMOTIONAL counter (defame me, change the subject) or a LOGICAL counter (try to use Scripture to disprove the issue, or if that's impossible, to cloud the issue.) The LOGICAL counter would be "But Jesus himself said there weren't good men!" -------------------------------------------------- Matthew 19:16-23. 16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. Mark 10:17-23 17And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. 19Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. 22And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. 23And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! Luke 18: 18And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. 20Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. 21And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. 22Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! ======================================== I included the surrounding verses for a reason. It should be plain to all that these verses from different (SYNOPTIC) Gospels all address the exact same incident, from 3 slightly different "observers." But this is all one event, therefore, all one INSTANCE. Jesus didn't go around all the time saying "Only God is good-so never call anyone else 'good'.) If he did, he would have confused his followers worse than they already were when he said that "Luke 6:45. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart. (And said the same in the same instance in Matthew.) So, Jesus APPEARS to have said something in one place, and APPEARS to have said the opposite in another place. We have an APPARENT Bible contradiction. How do we resolve it? Well, if we skip the ones saying "discard the Bible" and "don't trust the Bible", we have an approach that says "the many clear verses clarify the few exceptions." Lots of places in the Bible-including from Jesus himself, say there's "good men." And one instance has Jesus saying "there's nobody good." Do we discard all the others and laud the exception? We can, but that's not intellectually honest. We can, however, ask ourselves "In light of knowing there ARE "good men", what did Jesus mean when he said "none are Good EXCEPT GOD?" Obviously, he was drawing a contrast between all men including himself, and God Almighty. In another place, he called his followers "evil", yet we don't go around calling them THAT! Matthew 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? Jesus was making a point about the goodness of God by using an obvious exaggeration and saying they were evil (BY COMPARISON TO GOD ALMIGHTY.) If you think Jesus really thought all his followers were evil people- including the 12 he himself chose- then I have no words to convince you otherwise. ====================================== So, to review, the Bible says some people ("men") are good ("good men"), and some people ("men") are evil ("evil men"). The Bible gives attributes of both "good men" and "evil men." We are to avoid "evil men" and not avoid "good men." We are also to be careful to determine which is which before making any statements.[/b] "Isaiah 5:20 20Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! " A) A man's speech will reveal what's in his heart. If he sees nothing wrong with hurting others with his words, with using his words to deceive, then that is what is in his heart, and that is an evil man with an evil heart. B) A man who devises evil is the opposite of a good man, and the LORD disapproves of him. By "devising" evil, we are not talking of someone who saw a near occasion of sin and committed it in the heat of the moment. We are speaking of a man who has sat down and worked out a plan that facilitated evil- that worked out how to do evil and get away with it. (Like, say, establshimg a network of people to approach young women, contriving excuses to being alone with them, having arranged to be alone with them in a place that's been furnished with a bed, having taught that physical affection is not sinful so they're less likely to protest, having liquor on hand to lower their inhibitions, and possibly drugging them if that doesn't work, then having a network of people to monitor her afterwards, and destroying her reputation or driving her to suicide if she seems likely to report it. That takes a lot of planning, and considerable shopping.) C) The opposite of a godly person and an upright person is someone who lies in wait to take advantage of others, and enjoys himself at their expense. D) Finally, there's good men, and there are men who lead people astray. When we see someone who teaches others that they can engage in sinful behavior, that sinning is ok "if they can handle it", and so on, we can see we're dealing with a man who is NOT good. The thing is, when we look at both what people say, and what Scripture says, the man's institutionalizing and premeditation of evil mean that the evil things he purposed, did and planned show that he WAS an evil man. There's plenty of men vpw's age who didn't view women as combination slave and concubine, and many still don't. Being a boss and hiring a secretary with the intent to pressure her to have sex is both a crime and reprehensible. Was vpw called of God to teach His Word? His own testimony was that he considered it as one of 3 possible careers- along with music and business, and chose ministry as his career path. When he was at it for A YEAR, he was ready to give up. When he was at it LATER, he AGAIN was ready to give up. He was WORKING his CAREER of ministry for over a year, having preached for over a year, and having completed his entire time in ministry education, WITHOUT BELIEVING THE BIBLE WAS GOD'S WORD. That's what he HIMSELF said. He didn't BELIEVE THE BIBLE WAS GOD'S WORD when he decided to go into ministry, or when he began his career. Small wonder he was so discouraged early on. He had spent years in preparation, and STILL was unprepared to believe God's Word or seek answers for people there. In fact, the decision to go into ministry was made while he was still maintaining his reputation as a bully and a show-off with his local community. He NEVER had respect for the authority of other men of God. He spoke well of them-to the point he could get something from them. Otherwise, he chafed against any sort of rules or authority. And once he got what he wanted from another man of God- like Stiles- he either stopped talking about them entirely (he deleted Stiles' name from the White Book) - or like Leonard- he dropped out of sight and hoped they'd never find out he'd stolen their material. This man found a book from Stiles- then he reproduced Stiles book, said it was his own, and charged people retail for Stiles' book. This man found a class from Leonard- then he reproduced Leonard's class, and said it was his own, and charged people retail for Leonard's class. Those are not good deeds, those are evil deeds. The man did not choose ministry for good, and did not use morally correct actions once he was a minister- nor did he use the Bible as a moral guide for his own actions. He also used his previous denomination to pay his salary and give him a title while he was building a ministry of his own on the side- he was running pfal classes for about a decade before he left- and that as all outside his denomination and never actually TO his congregation. If a RESPONSIBLE MARRIED MAN OF GOD suddenly finds himself hip-deep in young women, and some of them begin to show interest in having sex with him, he's supposed to put up some really strong boundaries rather than agree to sin. He's supposed to make sure he's not in private with them- Billy Graham's managed that for a lifetime- and satisfy himself and his wife in conjugal relations with his wife if he wants sex, and teach the group in general to NOT sin and have sex outside of marriage. That's all manageable-if one is determined to do what God says to do, and NOT do what God says NOT to do. Joseph didn't have sex with Potiphar's wife because God said it was wrong. When she cornered him, he ran off and refused to sin, no matter how easy it was, and no matter how young and hormone-driven he was. You can't convince me a RESPONSIBLE, GOOD man of God who's 50 years old and married will not be able to restrain his sex impulses IF HE WANTS TO. And, again, vpw didn't even find himself in this situation- he ORCHESTRATED this situation. ========================== So, in summation: 1) The Bible says there are "good men" and "evil men." 2) The Bible lists criteria to tell "good men" and to tell "evil men." 3) When the Bible's criteria are applied to vpw's life, it is plain that BY THE BIBLE'S STANDARD, vpw was an EVIL MAN, not just a man who did a few bad things in his life. 4) It is our RESPONSIBILITY to APPLY THE BIBLE'S STANDARD and IDENTIFY the GOOD MEN and IDENTIFY the EVIL MEN. Too bad we didn't know more and were unable to identify vpw as an EVIL MAN during his lifetime, but we are remiss in our duties if we can't clearly see him as an EVIL MAN now, or see that he is and stubbornly REFUSE TO APPLY THE BIBLE'S STANDARDS just because we don't want to hear that he wasn't an ok guy. God never promised us all our duties would be PLEASANT, but he expected us to be honest with HIM and EACH OTHER. So, if we DON'T WANT TO SAY that a certain EVIL MAN is EVIL, that's a non-issue. The truth is, the man is evil. vpw was an EVIL MAN who DEVISED EVIL THINGS, then PERFORMED EVIL THINGS on God's children, and fed his lusts on their bodies, on their money, and on their adulation. Anyone who finds that unpleasant to hear should change their heart to find the truth more pleasant rather than try to call the truth a lie, or to silence me from telling the truth, or to call me names for declaring the truth. Besides, if I had to choose between pleasing God by telling the truth, or pleasing every single person by hiding the truth.....

I've noticed a consistent pattern here. Let's see if anyone else has noticed this about this thread so far. 1) Most people have been posting mostly logically, with little emotion. 2) Most people have been taking contrary points of view with Johniam, disagreeing with them. 3) John has responded first by calling every dissenter as "angry" or said their posts have "anger", and said the entire thread was to "call him out". (Actually, the thread was to address one idea, which is both in its title and is the subject of a lengthy first post: What is a good man? What is an evil man? Where did vpw fall in this? 4) For someone complaining that emotion has been all over the posts of others, John's posts have been consistently the most emotional ones on the thread. 5) John's attempts to refute the subject of the thread and the other posters seem to center around either ignoring the Bible verses posted and saying that there is no such thing as a "good man", and CHANGING THE SUBJECT and GOING OFF-TOPIC into "how men have it tough" "how society has a double- standard about men", and so on. Either he doesn't realize this has nothing to do with what we were talking about (which speaks badly to his ability to discuss as an adult here) or he knows full well this is another subject and desperately wants us to get off the initial subject. Since that's been a consistent pattern whenever someone wanted to say "vpw was a great guy because I learned some good stuff", I suspect it's more of the latter than the former. (That, and the former is an axe John has to grind for the rest of his life, since it's seemed to pop up all over threads it had little or nothing to do with. =========================================================== First, we have someone who, apparently, didn't read the opening post, he seems to have skimmed it, because he skipped over the relevant Bible verses. (I'll get back to that.) Possibly that's because he was eager to slap the "angry" title and the "morally superior" title on a post. Small wonder nobody actually sees any EVIDENCE of anger in that post. I make a point of waiting a few days at times, or a few hours, to make sure my posts don't come out of emotion or impulse, but rather of logic. (Compare the timestamp of the opening post of this thread to the post it refuted. Compare all my responses with what they responded to, including this one.) Rather than address my points, John seemed quick to call me emotional, to change the subject, and INSULT me. ("angry post", "moral superiority", "stupid laundry list", "You have nothing but bad news", "vanity of vanities", "hubris". He claims I "misrepresent" and could do so to Jesus. On top of all of that, after spending all that time avoiding the initial post and changing the subject, he used the word "IRRELEVANT." Since his post actually was the "irrelevant" one (name-calling is not "relevant" to this thread), it's not without irony John can slap that label on me. It's an old thing, accusing someone of something the accuser is doing at the time. The Pharisees were said to have done it to Jesus himself. I'm sure it was an old tactic 2000 years ago. ===================== As for "misrepresenting", did I "misrepresent" anyone? Did I make any claim about vpw that is not common knowledge around here? I can provide my sources if anyone missed any of them. ============================================== I posted this: "I'll say it outright, and keep it simple. A) I believe there's overwhelming evidence that vpw was a fraud from the day he first stepped behind a pulpit (and before that.) B) I believe he was neither the first nor the last person to defraud the Body of Christ, and that's disgraceful no matter who does it. (Personally, I'd like some severe penalties to apply, but the laws of the US don't permit castration for rapists, slow deaths or dismemberments for child molesters, etc.) C) I believe there's overwhelming evidence that vpw found the best work from the best Christians he could find, then deceived us all by saying is was from him and God and due to some special covenant between them. D) I believe that in some cases, vpw taught error he copied from other Christians, and often taught some good or even great stuff he copied from other Christians. E) I believe it is harmful and false to carry around illusions that any of that was not true, and to elevate vpw past the level of "charlatan" and into the auspices of "prophet", "apostle", "man of God", "godly teacher", and so on. If I heard Charles Manson make an insightful comment about Scripture, I'd thank God for the insight, but I certainly would not seek to join Manson's group. F) I believe the truths of Scripture stood before vpw was born, and they abide since his death, and vpw has nothing to do with that. If Scripture contains Truth, then it is good to learn it and try to understand and apply it when possible. G) I believe that- no matter who teaches- it's the responsibility of the Bible student to evaluate what was said and try to identify and remove the errors inserted by the teacher. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (King James Version) 21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (New American Standard Bible) 21But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; So: A) Read Bible, try to apply it: Good thing. B) Use the Bible to evaluate everything vpw ever said: good thing. C) Elevate vpw because he sometimes spoke what the Bible said: bad thing. D) Believe vpw's groundless claims because he sometimes spoke what the Bible said: bad thing. E) Believe what the Bible says whether or not vpw agreed with it: good thing. I don't think I can make my positions any simpler than that." John responded with this: and then promptly changed the subject. My post was not BRIEF, but I never claimed it was. However, anyone can see it was both OUTRIGHT and STRAIGHTFORWARD, which is exactly what I claimed. Perhaps John's laboring under a misunderstanding about what the words "outright" or "straightforward" mean, or thinks that post length is somehow related to either (which it is not, and most of us know this.) ========================================================== Other posters, not reacting emotionally as John did, do not seem to be seeing the same posts John is seeing. They seem to see refutation and thoughtfulness, and not personal attacks nor anger. At least until John posted, possibly.

Revelation 21 (New American Standard Bible) 1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."