WordWolf

I do, as do many of us. HOWEVER, that is NOT a requirement for posting here. I direct you to a brief introduction. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=7913 aka, "Welcome to the Greasespot Cafe!" I also direct you to Greasespot 101, http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showforum=12 The difference between "allegations" and "crimes", of course, is whether the speaker wants to pretend they didn't happen or not. vpw committed many crimes, and had a BRILLIANT network in place to cover his tracks-from BEFORE the crime thru cleanup AFTER the crime. It's shocking when one first starts hearing of this, but there's FAR too many eyewitness accounts from total strangers from all over the place, to REASONABLY dismiss them. Of course, you can decide to believe whatever you want. I originally thought the claims where exaggerated or false, myself- but I DID spend the time to review them, and changed my mind fairly quickly. (I'm a fast reader.)

I get the idea that this "donation" thing is a voluntary thing, for those who feel so inclined. Of course, if you want to send 10% of your income, you're free to do that, I'm sure.

["Handled", in this case, meaning "ignored the people on staff whenever they disagreed with my premise that the magazine articles were edited with a Divine Hand guiding it."]

Standard policy was: anyone seeming psychiatrically unstable was sent straight home. (See the thread "vp and me in wonderland" for 2 examples.) As for nobody going postal, that depends. T*m M blew his own brains own with a pistol because lcm was doing his wife. Does that count as postal enough? To my thinking, 'yes', but you may disagree.

[WordWolf in brackets and boldface.]

Hello. Your English is fine. :)

Some people would be surprised how many of us would agree with you about this. Except maybe the "no hard feelings" part. :) In other news, hello. I take it you've already read the greeting and Greasespot 101, so I've nothing useful to add beyond them at the moment. The others will be along with their own greetings.

He may not have wanted the auditorium named after him, but I think he thought of twi AS Wierwillites without calling them that. Think about it. The PFAL class started with another man's class with vpw's name slapped on it. Why? So it could be about him. The White Book originally mentioned another (anonymous) man taught Wierwille-who vpw clearly remembered was JE Stiles, and later editions edit any mention of another man out- despite Stiles' book being the original White Book with vpw's name slapped on it. Why? So it could be about him. He went to Haight-Ashbury personally and put forth he had a unique knowledge of the Bible, and convinced some of them to be his advertising arm. Great Christians acted on both coasts, and people believed when they saw THEM in action. Once the Great Christians brought the numbers in, vpw kicked them out, and ordered all authority to come FROM him, and all money to go TO him. Why? So it could be about him. Oh, and bring in the money. Less than 1% of twi income ever went out ANYPLACE to benefit people. And of that, most of it was to cover twi mistakes- like paying for rehab for injured Christians. vpw lacked ANY formal training in programs and experience in programs, but wasted no time setting up programs-all of which were designed to make a profit. Which, of course, they did. Anyone who entered those programs-which were written or verbal "gentlemen's" agreements-was required to live up to their agreements, but vpw reserved the option of kicking them out if they failed to grovel sufficiently. He exercised this option at least twice-once with the Zero Corps and once which is documented in "VP and Me." (That incident apparently was what lcm drew on when he demanded HIS loyalty oath.) Anybody who was around when he was in one of his GOOD moods heard him call everybody in twi-or whichever portion was present- "MY KIDS". That one's even in TW:LiL. He also called himself "THE TEACHER" years before PFAL was stolen from Leonard. He continued this IN PFAL. Why? So it could be about him. So, would vpw want the label? I think he'd HATE the label. Did he want the blind obedience implicit in such a label, without the label? I think that's what he wanted ALL ALONG, and acted accordingly. Of course, this is my opinion, but it appears to fit the facts. Does it fit his PUBLIC IMAGE? NO. That was of him being an "aw shucks" homespun humble teacher who just happened to have the most special revelation since the First Century Christians stopped writing. However, the discrepancy between Wierwille the Public Image and Wierwille the Man He Was When He Thought No One Was Looking...is massive. Correct.Some of us, however, feel that the deliberate deceptions were wrong, and the felonies they covered were worse, and feel vpw was thus not worthy to be considered a leader at ANY level. That's true of you but not of SOME people. To challenge anything in pfal, to challenge vpw's doctrine, is tantamount to challenging the Bible, since it challenges their understanding OF the Bible, and their own self-image as a Bible-believer. Now, everyone ELSE can have civil discussions on content and meaning, but those with a hair-trigger can derail a nice conversation. Well, with you it is not a problem. (Or if it is, it's a little problem and you function as a normal citizen.) With a few, this IS a problem.

Actually, what usually bugs them is attacking them for NOT believing him, or attacking their organizations, or accusing those who expose his evil hidden deeds of having a motive BEYOND 'exposing his evil hidden deeds'. I can tell the difference between internal consistency and hypocrisy,and I'm not retuning my detectors to match YOUR priorities. I'll answer your question, and I'll do it simply, so anyone who WANTS to know the answer CAN understand the answer. Using the term "apologist", IN AND OF ITSELF, is not antagonistic. HOWEVER, depending on who'se using it, sometimes it's a statement of fact, a word used in a single post (good thing) and sometimes it's in indicator that the poster is beginning to go on the warpath and pick fights with other posters (bad thing). Now, you've got a track record of picking fights with posters and derailing threads. So, what might be an innocent question from ONE poster is often a LOADED question from you. That's why TL BEGAN with a disclaimer, so that she expressed a desire NOT to pick a fight. Your response? You picked a fight. TL asked you not to continue, and you chose to do so anyway. THEN you called everyone who disagreed with you "mockers and criticizers", which WAS meant as an inflammatory phrase, then accused OTHERS of making it personal. That's got all the internal integrity of "I don't understand why all you peckerwoods, rednecks, and hayseeds gotta take everything so personal! You're almost as touchy as the niggers, jigaboos, spooks and spearchuckers-they get angry every time I post! They must object to the substance of my argument." Well, we agree on that, at any rate. BTW, we WERE talking about this when the thread started...

Many thanks for both links.

Not ironic to most people. See, Neither CM nor WW ever claimed they didn't believe the Bible. Neither claimed they dismissed all information that vpw said just because vpw said it. We rejected the stance that "BECAUSE vpw said it, it is automatically gospel." So, we examine each thing individually. If it stands on its own merits, it stands. If it falls on its own merits, it falls. The things that stand on their own merits are no guarantee that the things that failed suddenly did NOT fail, nor that unexamined items suddenly get a free pass. I don't know how much looking up one verse in the Greek counts as "Biblical research", though. As it was, I had my Ricker-Berry handy, so if YOU had asked what it had said, I would have just grabbed it and posted it, too. Did it disprove your point? Did it support your point? Whatever. We meant different things. I meant "take it off the list, but WE get credit for taking it off the list, because WE looked at it, examined it, and found it didn't belong there." So, it comes off the list, but the WHY I quibbled on.

No, score one for the "ACTUAL ERRORS" team. Mike's method is "pretend it always said that and NEVER look it up. If someone claims otherwise, rather than gather evidence, insult the person, and change the subject." It's not one for Mike because MIKE has yet to successfully refute ANYTHING. The rest of us having intelligent discourse HAVE, in both directions.

The Gordon Ricker-Berry from the Stephens Text.... II Timothy 2:15, King James Version. "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." The Stephens Text (ibid) (English lettering) "Spoudason seauton dokimon parastesai tpstheps, ergaten hanepaioxhunton, orthotomounta tov logon tes aletheias." So, the Stephens Text has "orthotomounta". I do NOT have my Nestle's handy. (I need to buy a new copy.)

Since you're no longer baiting Mark about his beliefs but ARE still baiting TL's on her beliefs, I'm curious if this is due to him being male and this being some sort of misogynistic impulse- going after the wimminfolk and leaving the men alone. If not, perhaps you can progress in your temperance to the point that you can refrain from attacking her religion at every pretext.

"OBSERVATIONAL SELECTION", or "COUNTING THE HITS AND IGNORING THE MISSES." Every morning, thousands upon thousands of mothers send their kids to school. Every morning, thousands upon thousands of mothers worry something terrible will happen to their kids. Every afternoon, thousands upon thousands of mothers greet their children as they return home from school. The fear in the hearts of those mothers did precisely NOTHING to those children. Two guys, the same age. One has a mother who's terrified that something will happen to him, all through his childhood. The other has a mother who's concerned, but never obsessed over the whole concept. One of them is struck by a car and nearly killed. His mother was NOT the one who worried-her kid was fine. What was the difference? Cars are not "fear-seeking-missiles." Anecdotes don't "prove" a supposed universal "LAW". However, they can DISprove something doesn't ALWAYS work....

I don't know Hendricks. However, the more time I spend here, the more complete a picture I am able to form of who and what Dr Wierwille was, both on and off camera. Therefore, any time I hear someone say "this man considers it his mission to continue the work of Dr Wierwille", my first response is to reply "RUN!!!!! RUN LIKE THE WIND AND DON'T LOOK BACK!" (If you want more information on vpw himself-Dr Wierwille- I can direct you to the 2 "Wonderland" threads, which reveal an amazing level of details about the man.)

Well, you ALMOST got to their point. You operate APPLIANCES. You switch them on and off. They are cold, lifeless tools. That's how your MIND is supposed to be- a cold, lifeless tool. That way, when terrible news arrives, you "renew your mind", and throw the switch that separates sorrow from your existence. Now you can function again, just like an appliance. So, we'll see you on-time at the next meeting, then... Life, in and of itself, is NOT permitted by twi. Life has inconveniences, life is messy, life does not conform to clockwork. twi doesn't like anything that can't be told what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. So, they legislate life right out of the picture. That reminds me- if you are a twi'er, and the news that a friend died made you very sad and filled you with remorse, (especially now), many leaders will chide you for inept control over your emotions. Contrast that to the shortest verse in the Bible.... "Jesus wept." That was Jesus' response when he heard his friend Lazarus had died. Good thing Jesus was not in twi- but it's not like they miss him anyway.....

That would make SOME sense, Littlehawk, but, "no dice". One of the complaints about twi is that they've been teaching "all debt is evil" for over a DECADE now, but-no matter how many people ask-and MANY people have asked- they have offered NO practical alternatives to debt. So far, the only examples they've given of people with no debt are people who inherited money from dying relatives. So, the closest thing they've gotten to giving advice about that is "believe for family members who like you to drop dead". Otherwise, it's "just find a way to make it happen. And don't forget to send us 15% of your income each month- you still owe THAT."

Nice bait-and-switch of your own. You took a poster saying "I find the Bible a useful thing that I treat respectfully, for I believe it makes God known to me" and turned that into "The Bible is useful, but by itself can be very dangerous". The Bible should never be used as a substitute for God. The Bible-regardless of what certain criminals said-is not God, and never was. The Bible MAKES KNOWN God. Anything that MAKES KNOWN God should never be confused for God HIMSELF. This leads to worshipping the created thing rather than the CREATOR. (Romans 1.) The brass serpent was raised in the wilderness, at the direction of God Almighty. It was very useful, and was meant for healing from the God that heals. So, that showed an aspect of God for the people, YHWH-Rapha, YHWH Who Heals. However, some people later worshipped the brass serpent. What was the proper response then? Trash it and smash it to pieces. It was now leading people AWAY FROM GOD. === I'm also a little curious what led to an analogy between "trying to understand God by reading the Bible" and pornography. THAT struck me as going to ridiculous lengths to defend twi/vpw.

Since this followed a period where they were taken prisoner for over a generation, this is VERY plausible. That was the timeframe where the language of the people went from Hebrew to Syriac, and the split between Israelites (those kidnapped and returned) and Samaritans (those who never left) dated from. So, when they recovered the scrolls of Scripture, one priest (priests and Levites exercised their Hebrew so the usage didn't die out) would read the scroll aloud in Hebrew, while another would provide a fair translation into Syriac. This was the first instances of a Targum (translation from the Old Testament to another language.) I've heard this explanation from at least 3 different sources, at least 2 of which never heard of twi, and all 3 of which were completely independent of each other.

Nice try, but it's STILL not a reflection of what the verse meant. Points for the attempt, however. I WOULD recommend more sleep before posting.