WordWolf

Say, Rascal, do you object to a newlywed couple making out? We know you object to RAPE, MOLESTATION and maybe ADULTERY, do you consider all forms of affection between adults to be wrong, as Mike suggests, or just the ones that GOD said not to do?

Wrong, wrong WRONG!!!!!! What wierwille TAUGHT was that what David did to URIAH was wrong....what David did to Bathsheba, wierwille had no problem with....thus the *all the women in the kingdom belong to the king* teaching..... You gonna quote wierwille like gospel, then you damn well better get his teaching straight..... It ain`t MY mind that is in the gutter, it`s the sleazeball who was raping our sisters while teaching this little gem who was living in the gutter....while his *mind* was full of the scripture you love to quote.....it is HE whom you should be offended with.... vpw said "TECHNICALLY, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king." vpw said what was wrong was the murder-but the adultery was NOT decried, and THEREFORE was not disapproved by vpw. Furthermore, since he said that "TECHNICALLY" Bathsheba was David's PROPERTY (that's what "belongs to" means in English), it should be understood that vpw believed David acted in his "TECHNICAL"-and thus LEGAL-rights in having sex with her. That's what vpw taught in pfal. That's not what the Bible teaches. Adultery is a sin, whether the adulterer is a beggar or a king. BTW, by Mike's argument, NATHAN's head was in the gutter. Those darn prophets just can't keep their mouths shut....always complaining about SOMETHING....if it's not "you committed adultery", it's "you committed murder" or "you gave great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme" (II Samuel 12:14). That's the same type of thinking that got Jeremiah put in prison for confronting SIN.

Or that the truth needs to be told, not hidden. It does NOT mean "ignore the evil that men do." Or aware Rascal has overcome it to the degree of avoiding commission of FELONIES, and awareness that ministers who are supposed to represent God can do at LEAST as well. They're supposed to be "BLAMELESS" like it says in the REAL Bible. If so, they at least would not commit evil acts against others. Those who have their hearts set on what is right will ALSO not commit evil acts against others. Those who RAPE and MOLEST others have demonstrated they neither follow external rules nor the internal love of God, else they would love their neighbor as themself and fulfill the law thereby. No, she just refuses to ignore specific sins done by the criminal ringleader of twi and his inner circle of cronies. Right. By corrupting twi from the top, he institutionalized sin among an inner circle who kept a "lockbox" of silence, thus allowing him to ruin lives at the hands of the top leaders, starting with vpw. The good is suspect, to say the least, when it is the "bait" to set on the trap.

Yes. Specific acts of evil can be discussed SPECIFICALLY, and not in a vague way. Specific acts of evil are WRONG. Wrong about Rascal, and if it was YOUR ox getting gored, the specifics WOULD matter to you. Why raise such a fuss over RAPE, MOLESTATION, and FRAUD when we all fail to love God first and foremost? No shinola, Sherlock. Relevance? Jesus did not say those ministers in office were blameless when they sinned-he confronted them. In defending them and attacking confrontation, you place yourself in diametric opposition to him.

Nice irony. I posted this on page 18... Mike's immediate next post included the following: This gave a jim-dandy example of what I said on the same page- that some people claim that all ministers rape and molest, and raised the stakes, saying EVERYONE would rape and molest if given the opportunity....and, of course the "why focus on a felon's FELONIES?" issue.

Was this answered and I missed it?

Next quote. "He wore WHAT?" "He wore plum." "He wore a FRUIT?" "No, Alcalde, he was dressed entirely in plum. Everything matched."

*slaps forehead* Ok, I got my wires crossed. I thought this was ANOTHER song I didn't know. This was a quote from a MOVIE since I didn't check my window and see this is the MOVIE thread. (Plus we were on a similar song in the other thread.) === The movie is "SUPERGIRL". Whatever you do, don't try to read a "Supergirl" comic lately. DC has completely mashed her identity/history. Here's an example. Kara Zor-El, Superman's cousin, died in "Crisis on Infinite Earths" in the 80s. The reset history of the one (no longer "infinite") earth was that there was ONE survivor of Krypton's explosion: Superman. Then an alien shapechanger IMITATED Superman, and was Supergirl. (Matrix, late 80s/early 90s.) Then they did strange things with Matrix, and she got flaming wings and she was merged with some sort of "earth angel". Why? No idea. Then this other chick I don't know about with the white t-shirt is claiming to be a Supergirl. Now they brought in a new Kara Zor-El, who's from Krypton. No, it's not your imagination. This DOESN'T make sense.

Ok, the song's obviously about Kara Zor-El, but I'm totally unfamiliar with the song itself.

Harrison Ford the Fugitive Joey Pantoliano

Can I beg another quote from the same song?

Brian Doyle Murray Wayne's World Rob Lowe

Those who still rubberstamp vpw's books and classes as if they descended from heaven insist that the imaginary woman in Session One were somehow unique in that she worried about her young child when he was out of her sight. Thus, her unusual worry produced the unusual result of her imaginary son being killed as the direct result of her imaginary worry. So, let's answer directly. Every day, millions of mothers (not to mention the fathers) see their children off to a babysitter, a preschool, a school, a playgroup. Every day, millions of mothers meet up with their children later in the day, whether by picking them up, or by their delivery. Between those two events (happening millions of times a day across the planet), the children are out of the sight of their mothers. So, the question: Do mothers worry about their children when they are not in sight?

Lest we forget, yet ANOTHER category of people exists. They are people who found out-had wives, sisters, sisters-in-law, daughters, cousins, etc who were raped or molested- yet faced that situation by deciding their perfect worldview of twi was MORE important than truth, loved ones, Biblical application, and so on. So, they made the voluntary decision to withdraw from REAL VICTIMS who were their "loved ones" (what a misnomer!) in order to avoid charging FELONS with a FELONY, saying it was "that the ministry be not blamed!" (No, that means that the minister does not commit a FELONY, not that you aid and abet a FELON.) So, there are victims out there who were blamed by family, called liars by family, shoved aside by family, for that reason. I find it almost beyond belief that such people exist, but they do. These are often people who have the most difficulty dealing with posts like "vpw raped and molested young women" without blaming the victims of the FELONIES without A) calling them liars B) saying the numbers of FELONY victims at his hands are exaggerated C) he molested them for their own good -to toughen them up spiritually D) saying all God's ministers commit felonies-so what E) God's criminal ministers confess to God once, then there's no other consequence to their crime-to the FELON, the victim is still in therapy F) why focus on a felon's felonies? and so on. Yes, each of those stratagems I mentioned were ALL from posts at the GSC. (Including the "toughen them up" stuff.)

CORRECT! According to local legend, the original song (which doesn't have the line I used-it's a different line) was based on a house of ill-repute run by madam Marianne LeSoleil Levant (Marianne the Rising Sun), and its door was marked only with the rising sun. Local tours will show you the location, I hear. I like songs with trivia. Sue me.

And if it had been any one else's kids, the yelling and spittle directed at the parents would have torn off the roof. They would have been blamed for not leading their family, and exhorted to cut off communications with the kids, maybe put them in foster care..... (That advice WAS given to some parents.)

Since I'm sure about my answer (I can sing the whole song), I'll post the next song.... I think someone can get this one with just one line. "In God, I know I'm one."

The only "Crash Test Dummies" song most people know (if any) has no vowels in the title. This song, however, I know. "What I am", by Edie Brickell, aka Mrs Paul Simon. (Unless they divorced and I missed it.) Technically, Edie Brickell and the New Bohemians.

That's true only when one completely forgets what we've learned to date from Mike's posts. The time Mike spent transcribing audiotapes of vpw, he likened to the transcription of Paul's letters. He's also made mention of time supposedly spent with him and so on.... This from the same man who said I suppose he was keeping quite a distance while asking all those questions and talking heart stuff. Mike's sure been around. When he wants to claim he was an insider, he spent lots of time around vpw. When he wants to claim he was "one of us", vpw was unable to pick him out of a lineup. Mike is very versatile. He is much like the famous "tall, fat, skinny little man." Based on the mutability of the printed page and his history, is this a credible account? Up to you to decide that, but I think a proven track record of questionable authenticity has been demonstrated... ...for which I hold blameless the man who chose them out for training, and designed and oversaw their training for four years. All of them were poor performers, but it had nothing to do with a common education being deficient.... Since it's in print this way, it MUST have been the same way in practice. There couldn't possibly be a discrepancy between doctrine and practice, could there? This doctrine failed EVERYONE except me so far (and up to 7 other people.) However, if we try it again and try harder, it will work this time! My definition of healing, of course, includes "holds vpw as the greatest man of God since the apostle Paul, who received revelation at least the equal to that which Paul received, and superior to all other Christians of the past 2 millenia, worldwide." It also includes "holds vpw's books as a new Bible." My definition of "healing" is a non-standard definition.

He had NO choice in the matter. Someone dragged him to the pc and held a gun on him until he typed the messages. his family was held hostage unless he kept typing. --> And yet, outside the political forum, he seems to be in the middle of most of them. Coincidence? Offensive content? Offensive style? All of the above? That will last until she either agrees pfal is the new Bible (agreeing with Mike), or until Mike insults her too (if she doesn't agree pfal is the new Bible.) It WAS... Mike had already posted there some time ago. His famous "last lost" subject was up there. Of course, that's academic now, since twi sent their attack dogs after the board. And has "thanked him" by disregarding the rules of conduct he's asked to follow, like not posting his Doctrine outside the Doctrine forum. About fricking time. Or, as we've been saying for years, he can make his OWN website and board and post whatever he wants on it.... General rule: don't mention one BOARD on another without permission, don't mention someone who doesn't post on your board without specific explicit permission, and make a link to another board if you're even THINKING about discussing it, so people can see it and form their OWN opinions. That's common courtesy all over cyberspace.

Bravo, CM! That settles that question. David never completely lived it down, either. Even Matthew 1 makes a passing reference to Uriah when it gets to David.

I find it useful to think before opening the window, then thinking before I type, and thinking as I compose the post. Few cheapshots make it past that stage. Sometimes I do a quick glance for major errors as well, before hitting "save". All of this helps prevent rash posting, which also lowers the hostility level of posts.

No, I thought you were talking about a different article, because you now were making blind references to an article without posting the article. I overestimated your ability. Usually, the name "Schoenheit" around here is used in conjunction with the Adultery paper. I didnt jump to the conclusion that you meant that either-I ASKED. You bemoaned it, but I do read your posts for content, such as they are. Otherwise, I'd never comment on the substance of your claims. That's your main CLAIM. Your sole support to that claim-offered only when I insisted- is that Schoenheit supposedly said so in an article. Having seen what you do to the Blue Book and the others, I trust you LESS than the average person on such a claim, and I'd demand the exact quote from the AVERAGE person. (I do that all the time when I'm not on this website, in fact.) So, are you going to reproduce this article here, continue to say "it agrees with me" but not produce it, or change the subject and pronounce victory? I'd prefer the first option, but I'm expecting one or both of the others, based on past performance.

Oh-you changed your post after I read it. Hang on.... I'll skip commenting on what I already commented on.... I find the overt stupidity attributed to Bathsheba running to tell her friends here insupportable. You believe plenty of people knew. He notified the locals "I'm back and I'm not sleeping with my wife?" I expect a few people noticed, but-unless they followed him around-they had no way of knowing if he went home for an hour here or there. It IS possible to arrive surreptitiously to a residence, have conjugal relations with someone, and leave quietly as well. That's not a new activity. Did some people SUSPECT? I'd expect so. Did they have PROOF? That's a whole other matter. You suspect they knew. Some of them SUSPECTED David.Suspicion is not PROOF. Jumping to conclusions IS a human custom-I agree. Nathan made an announcement in the Town Square? David made an announcement in the Town Square? I missed that verse... You STILL haven't supported your statement. *** I know no good man sinks to knocking up a best friend's wife and then murdering him without first having scalded his conscience with many dastardly deeds. Many people either saw these things, or even worse were victims. I know no man, even one who repents, totally eradicates the remnants of such a seared conscience. I know David sinned again, even though it's not recorded. I'll bet my life on it, and not loose a wink of sleep. I also know that David's bad example was kept alive by the adversary (like Dr's sins here) Now we get to the REAL reason for this post. It's NOT about David, it's about vpw and his sins. Was that supposed to be surreptitious? Nathan's reproof-which is in the Bible-mentions something alongthese lines. David had to go an awful long way to restore his good graces and redeem his own reputation and that of the nation. Gee, if they got that far, they could follow the logic all the way. "The King tried it and got NAILED-his son died and everything. If HE couldn't get away with it, what chance would I have?" Looks like you're saying Solomon's sins are specifically the consequence of finding out David committed adultery and murder. Since he wasn't born yet, I find this very difficult to support. Again, got a Bible verse, or is this something you find indisputable about human nature as well?