WordWolf

Oh, let's see....this is a much longer list...... vpw was fond of levelling every sort of complaint at regular churches. To hear him, they were loaded with tradition-pushing bunglers. (Some people, at twi, and out, still speak of "churchianity".) He used terms like "theological cemetary, uh, seminary" *wink wink* to imply no real Christian can be found in one except by accident. Pretty much the entire contents of Ralph Woodrow's book "Babylon Mystery Religion" (a rewrite of Hislop's "The 2 Babylons") were accepted and propagated. Of course, Woodrow has repudiated his previous book and issued a full retraction ("the Babylon Connection"). Some people, naturally, still believe the previous book was true, even though Woodrow's explained WHY it was wrong as well. Let's see-the cross is an evil symbol for a number of reasons, any person who leaves twi was either spiritually dark or evil, and bad things will happen to them....

Ok, it has to be non-harmful, but can it at least be painful?

I've read this accusation before, even when I was in. Even saw someone quote the page from vpw's book, then deliberately miscontrue it to claim he was saying the Holy Spirit did to Mary exactly what a bull does to a cow. Needless to say, criticisms like THAT only made twi look RIGHT in claiming other Christians didn't know stuff, but could only make up stuff. I thought "Gee, if that's the strongest argument you can make, I'll stay where I am. I'm actually LEARNING something here."

Apples and oranges, Greg. Mandii specified 1981's "top leadership." Save some time and just call her a liar if you're going to. It would at least be up-front and honest, even if wrong. Seems some people who were NOT on grounds at one of the Root locates refuse to believe bad doctrines, bad practice, or anything bad ever came down from the top. Any problems were always isolated incidents that in no way reflected the top leadership's positions, even tho they set policy and were legally and spiritually responsible for the policy and practices on said grounds.

I neither believe nor disbelieve what I read, without corroboration. However, JustAsking asked for corroboration and got it pretty fast. That's NOT what you were doing. You were attempting to refute rather than seek information. (I've read the entire thread.) That other thread's around here somewhere. I think it's still in "About the Way". It was one of the few I started.

Oldiesman, Back on the "Superman? Green Lantern?" thread, we discussed this. Why didn't you question the people THEN about it? It was started specifically to address the timeframe when vpw was alive, and for statements from or about him. A few of those fit what you were asking. But, if we're all liars and it didn't happen if you weren't there, there's no point in looking for the thread.

So, then, "discipline" equals "beat them down"? How do these reprobate sheep walk around the pasture after the shepherd has demonstrated to them who's boss by laying the smack down on them?

Bumping this back to the top to accompany the Child Abuse thread.

Socks has summed up something that SHOULD have been implicit in the Family Corps from the beginning. Then again, how many experts on Child Psychology, Family Health, Mental Health Professionals, or Social Workers were on hand or consulted when it was being developed? Seems someone claiming to want their best for God's Kids would actually try to get them the best, as I see it. Looks like it was rejected as unnecessary, or a needless expense. Besides, what would a PhD or someone with 30 years of experience counselling families possibly tell us? We had "da werd", and knew everything. Children are NOT to be straitjacketed into rigid roles where they have to perform perfectly on command. That's not the same as "well-behaved." There also IS a difference, even, between a spanking and a beating. A spanking, if done, shouldn't leave a mark, or leave the kid so sore they can't sit down. It's the ACT, not the FORCE, that has an impact. (Plus, why must it be seen as the FIRST thing you try, and not a last resort if other things aren't getting thru?) A beating leaves a child black-and-blue, possibly leaves scars, breaks skin, etc. A beating as such is not appropriate for a child, no matter what year this is, and no matter WHO does it-parent, teacher, minister, nun, mogfot, whoever. Before someone yells that I'm disregarding Proverbs, I'm expecting that what Proverbs is talking about is a SPANKING, not a beat-down. (I intend to follow this expectation up with a little study, and I ask anyone else interested to look it up also.) ============================================ That having been said, I believe this thread has shown, early on, that abuse, both corporal (beatings) and sexual, occurred in twi, and that the bot, once they were INFORMED (on more than one occasion) elected to cover it up and move the abuser to another location rather than fire him and remand him to the civil authorities. Anyone who can read the early pages of this thread and NOT believe that is either calling those posters liars, or refuses to read their testomonies at all. (I Corinthians 14:38.) It was also common practice, and permitted by oversight of the FC, to try to mold small children into little robots that did whatever their parents wanted them to. That's ALSO evident just going from this thread. It is also evident that some people are unable to accept this happening, or that it was in any way harmful to the child. I'll not speculate what's at risk for such people. twi, BTW, is hardly alone in this. I'm personally aware of 3 other religious organizations (including the RCC) who were sued specifically over covering up rape or molestation, and relocating the offender. BTW, I'll have to find and bump the "Hunt Close" thread, which is germane.

Ex? Do you have many of these videos? Might you even say you have a "plethora" of these videos?

"If the VPW antagonists are nothing but whiners, liars, idiots, etc. and the VPW apologists are also whiners, liars, idiots, etc, therefore the most sensible thing YOU could do is find the 'middle ground' if you ask me- not to go about finding someone, or accusing somebody of calling you a whiner, liar, idiot or whatever." Actually, WTH, YOU decided that both sides were extreme, and therefore both sides were wrong, so you DID call them liars, etc. Second of all, the reason nobody asked you what's sensible is that you're demonstrating logic fallacies. ========== Courtesy of the Nizkor Project. "Description of Middle Ground, Also known as Golden Mean Fallacy, Fallacy of Moderation. This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position.... This line of 'reasoning' is fallacious because it does not follow that a position is correct just because it lies in the middle of two extremes. This is shown by the following example. Suppose that a person is selling his computer. He wants to sell it for the current market value, which is $800 and someone offers him $1 for it. It would hardly follow that $400.50 is the proper price.....the claim that the moderate or middle position is correct must be supported by legitimate reasoning." =======================

Saw the video. Sometime during the past several years, out in the fields, a pod grew, and a double of John Rupp grew in it. One night it replaced him. That's the best explanation I can offer for the stiff caricature of the man John Rupp USED to be. That, or they hooked him up to a machine and sucked his personality dry. Whatever they did, they took his moustache, too. Maybe there's a REAL John Rupp on the run, with the moustache, trying to avoid capture. ================================================ Was it just me, or did it sound like Terry was reading a script prepared by twi and its lawyers? It sounded like a dry recital of their website when he spoke. They even included the "international countries", which is a real giveaway. Man, what a waste of....something. How many people here think that dry, inhuman drone of a piece will draw new flocks to their coffers? I bet they never recoup the cost of the video.

Seeking God's will and studying the Bible-good things. Rattling off a pat answer to all problems without actually getting involved with the people-bad thing. Beware, lest any man beguile you with "pithanologias", pithy sayings, catchy phrases, clever sound-bytes. God was issuing a warning for a reason.

Oh, and if you're using Windows, make sure you're getting all the critical security updates. Otherwise, your system has a correctible flaw you're ignoring.

Actually, I've had VERY good results from downloading free software. I prefer to go off recommendations from people who've used it. I currently use AdAware and Spybot Search & Destroy to knock out dataminers, registry keys, spyware, etc. Spybot was recommended here at the GSC. I've had GREAT results with both. (I use both and keep them updated.) If you're not using a Popup Blocker, I recommend using one. I recommend using at least one spyware killer every day. (I tend to use 3, but one isn't free. The third actually isn't particularly impressive, either.) If you're not using a firewall, you're insane and are just begging for trouble. There are free reliable firewalls. I also recommend using an antivirus program. Yes, there are free reliable ones. :)--> In general, an ad offering you a free program is trouble, and the program has bad stuff attached to it. Everything I've enjoyed using, I had to find on my own. The ones on the pay ads-popups and so on-are seeking to make their money back SOMEHOW by giving your computer access to it- usually, it is by making your computer accessible to THEM in some way. I'm no expert, but that's what I've learned.

Actually, I remember us discussing this before. It's on one of the threads SOMEWHERE....

Goey, I thought leaving out the context made it sound like he rattled that off once, in passing, in one sentence. He went on for a few paragraphs. That, I thought, was relevant. Oakspear, Interesting, and I agree. He always said "Estrangelo Aramaic", not "Aramaic from Estrangelo Text." I wonder who fixed his sentence. I recall hearing that some twi "scholars" sounded like idiots when they ran into real linguists and Bible PhDs who knew "Estrangelo Aramaic" wasn't a language.

Must there only be two points of view? A) VPW was a shining example who was fully justified in what little harm he may have caused B) VPW was a manipulative evil troglodyte who only came out of his cave to peddle some slick new way to garner money, power and women. How about all of us who think C) There was some merit in things we learned, but it wasn't ALL meritorious. There were times he may well have sincerely helped people out of genuine altruism, and other times he ground them up and threw them out. There were times he regretted of his sins, and then times he went out and did them again. What? Our POV is not valid because we didn't erect those ugly statues of vpw? Are we now guilty of vilifying him? Don't we exist? I just want to be loved is that so wrong?

Welcome to the cafe, Teknon! Congratulations on having the courage to face this. It's NOT easy, but, as many of us know from experience, it IS survivable. (Most of us have faced it, at least.) There's a LOT of material accessible from the main page of the website, http://www.greasespotcafe.com from the menu on the left. In the meantime, feel free to start private topics if you want to ask some questions privately. We understand the need for circumspection here- most of us, anyway.

You left out part of the context. PFAL, page 127-128. "As far as anybody knows, there are no original texts in existence today. The oldest dated Biblical manuscript is from 464 AD and written in Aramaic in Estrangelo script. There are older Aramaic manuscripts written in the Estrangelo script which predate 464 AD, but thay are not Biblical texts. What students or scholars refer to as "originals" really date from 464 AD and later..... Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the 5th century AD......" He gets VERY specific. BTW, copyright on the orange book is 1971. "Copyright" on the snowstorm is 1952, if I remember correctly. Ok, VPW gives the cutoff at 464 AD, correct? Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls date back to about 100 BC. They were discovered in 1947. They were well-known in Biblical circles by 1956. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls aren't the only documents. The Chester Beatty manuscript is from 180-225 AD. The Bodmer manuscripts, the same, for II, XIV, XV. The Rylands manuscript, 130 AD. (Gospel of John.) The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus are between 325-450 AD. So, even if the Dead Sea Scrolls are at 200 AD, that makes 7 manuscripts plus the ones from the Dead Sea Scrolls, all predating 463 AD. Oh, yes, the Septuagint is 200 BC. 8 manuscripts. So, history says "8 plus the Dead Sea Scrolls", vpw says "none." Yep, that's another error. If Brady hadn't reminded us the difference between accreditation and non-accreditation, this would be more of a surprise. Still, he didn't learn this studying for his Masters? BTW, please check my numbers. I know they all predate 464AD, but I may have swapped AD & BC in haste.

You have to admit he was right on the money about Return of the King, though.... One caveat I must make is about the Army of the Dead. I agree they were more compelling in the movie than the book. However, they also appeared in a scene in the movie that they DIDN'T appear in the book. Remember: the coasts couldn't send reinforcements to Gondor because corsairs were about to attack them. In the book, Aragorn uses the Paths of the Dead to get to the coast doublequick, and the Army of the Dead to wipe out the crews of the corsairs. Then the soldiers of the coast were free to man the corsairs, and sail to Gondor and ambush the ambushers. In the movie, Aragorn leads the Army of the Dead onto the boats and into the main battle. Dramatic, true, but a different concept.

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it..... I'm glad I got in, and I'm glad I got out.

From Mike's post 2/5/04, 11:33am, this thread... "WordWolf: Thank you for the promo. This is what I meant when I said to WhatTheHay that my detractors keep stirring the pot so more can become aware of the Good News I'm saying. I too was concerned that a lot of this thread would get lost to others who come in late. You've just given the more diligent ones a reason to go back and check the context in which I made those statements and the followups. They then can decide if you misrepresented me in your abbreviations and in which items of my many statements you selected. I'm not trying to convert the Bozos here, just those who are tired of the complaining and want some answers. You and your busload of Bozos will eventually see the writing on the wall when carloads of PFAL returnees get blessed and start making even more noise than I do. You're just a band wagon follower, and this one your on now one is going to end soon. You might want to start thinking about a new outfit when these fashions change and an new handle to hide your eventual shame (I John 2:28)." First of all, I didn't even show up on this thread until several pages into your diatribes. Personally, I think it's very important that new arrivals become aware of ALL the ramifications of your posts, not just the ones that look good on tv. I posted the dates to make it easier for them to look up the context. Your old claim of "misrepresentation" falls hollow when I post the ENTIRE CONTENTS of your post. (Such as your response to Vickles.) I provided the context and everything. Once again, "misrepresented" means "showing me in an unfavourable light". Since that was direct posts of your sans editorializing, my actual involvement in how you are portrayed is pretty small beer. I LIKE my fellow posters to do their own thinking and reading-I don't tell them they MUST conform to my thinking. *counts* Four insults AFTER that. My, that ill-behooves you. Name-calling and slandering. After all, I only report what YOU say. "Busload of Bozos"? That particular insult was more in vogue 4 years ago during the last Presidential campaign. "Band wagon follower"? On what bandwagon? Confucius say: "A wise man does not concern himself with alliances, but when he sees Right, he ranges himself alongside it." You make it sound like there's this organized anti-Mike movement that's been orchestrating protest-marches for years. It's just a bunch of individuals who've read your posts and each independently said "yuck!" when they read them. It's a bit sad to see you put yourself forth as understanding the innermost hearts of so many of us, when the most obvious things about us elude you. Was that REALLY the best response you could think of to what I say? "You're a jerk, your friends are jerks, and you'll be sorry when flocks of people validate my existence by embracing my POV." It also sounded like you were claiming that it is misrepresentative of what you posted to say you said Jesus IS a big ssupporter of PFAL and he told you so in one of your many talks. Why does it irritate you that I pointed that out? I mean, if it didn't irritate you, you would just have said "thank you" and gone on your merry way. But you DID post that. More than once you claimed Jesus' endorsement of PFAL, which, since your raison d'etre is to push PFAL with every typed syllable, means you're saying Jesus endorses your post content and subject matter. I mean, isn't this something you take pride in? Why would you NOT want it mentioned again?

For those of you who are just skimming this thread, here's an exchange you may have missed. Mike: 2/2/04 12:17am "When you see Christ in his glory he will be holding a PFAL book in his hand and teaching you from it." Mike 2/3/04 5:22am "Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL. He told me so." Vickles 2/3/04 7:51pm "So, Mike, you weren't kidding about JC coming with a PFAL book in his hand." Mike 2/3/04 7:53pm "Totally serious. I've already seen him this way more than once." =========================== With all the speed this thread's had, I figured a lot of people missed that. For those of you who think I made up Mike's position on the current Bibles, most of it's already reiterated on this thread. However, his most concise comment on it was from the "Sincere Answers Please" thread, 1/9/04 1:19am. "God's Word was LOST in the first century." On this here thread, his most concise comment on the same subject was (pg-9 2/3/04, 6:55pm) "...your present approach has failed for all those who tried it for 2,000 years." So, you decide if I'm misrepresenting or exaggerating. (If anything, I think I'm understating.)

For those of you just joining us, Mike's position concerning the Bible is as follows: A) the Bible was the Word of God "in the First Century". B) Sometime after "the First Century", the Bible was no longer "the Word of God". C) After the "First Century", the written "Word of God" was not available. Period. The only things that were available were woefully-inadequate Bibles, which he claims were altered sufficient to invalidate the contents. D) Sometime in the middle-to-late 20th century, God worked in tandem with vpw to rewrite "the Word of God" entirely from scratch. This is also known as the collected works of vpw-including pfal and the collaterals, plus various articles and tapes. Outside of materials written by vpw, "the Word of God" is inaccessible. E) According to Mike, vpw definitely thought of his books as replacing the Bible as the Word of God. He concealed all mention of this cabalistically in his materials (where only Mike sees it) for several reasons-mainly the unbelief of the students, and to hide it from the devil. F) So, according to Mike, there WAS no written "Word of God" for nearly 20 centuries, and this only ended once vpw set pen to paper. UNTIL vpw set pen to paper, it didn't EXIST in any written form. G) All references to "the Word of God" by vpw, according to Mike, either refer to the version lost centuries ago, or refer to the new improved testament vpw himself was writing. H) Mike has dogmatically declared that he absolutely will not even entertain the notion that his position might be wrong. I) Mike has previously been noted as having held this opinion for many, many years. In fact, he's compared tape transcription-work to the dictations Paul did to others. His position concerning pfal has fundamentally remained the same for many years, minus some minor tweaking. If you ask Mike, however, he will adamantly assert that he gave other positions an honest look for a considerable amount of time, and then eventually concluded his current POV (also known as his original POV) is the correct one. If you point this out, however, be prepared to be called several brands of liar. Please carefully note the positions concerning "the Word of God" and the Bible, as this will become critically important soon. That's why I was so redundant-I wanted to make sure the main points weren't missed.