WordWolf

OM, I think I _finally_ understand what is going on. Are you equating what twi taught with "the word"? Oldiesman's reply, 10/15/04, 12:42pm, was "The simple answer is yes, with the proviso that some of what twi taught/ teaches is wrongly divided. Stated another way, I don't think everything twi taught was/is rightly divided, but that part that was/is, is "the Word". ============================ So, that explains a few things. The rest of us mean one thing when talking about "The Word". We mean "the Bible as God's Word", or things along those lines (e.g. "the originals before translation".) When Oldies talks about "The Word", he means what vpw taught, packaged as twi materials like pfal. That stuff is "The Word" (i.e. "God-breathed"), except where it isn't. (Where it isn't is where it can be caught being blatantly wrong, like tithing.) ===================== So, when Oldies says "People renounced The Word", he means "People renounced vpw's teachings". Ok, if he had SAID that, we would have agreed, to varying degrees. Some of us believe some of the things he taught, but not simply because vpw taught them. We concluded they were sensible on their OWN merits. Some other people (obsessed with infant hygiene analogies, mostly) seem to view vpw's teachings as having an internal merit of their own, where they are not meant to be keys or assists to understanding the Bible, but of equal (or greater) merit to the Bible on their own. Those people would consider vpw's teachings to be "The Word". ============== So, have we renounced vpw? Yes we have? Have we renounced everything he taught? Most of us renounced his package of material as a whole; some of us have rejected all of its parts, most have rejected some parts and consider other parts reliable on their own merits. Personally, I think it's deceptive and dishonest to intentionally substitute one concept for the other, when it is clear the majority of us understand the words to mean one thing, and one or two others wish to reassign meaning to terms and words. To do so accidentally is inferior, sloppy work. (By this time, it's obvious it's not accidental.)

Bravo, Catcup!

That says it better than I did, I think.

That may be where all past performance has gone, and where the smart money would go, but, anything can happen. Perhaps this time, OM will take a long, hard look at the long, hard road inflicted on some people, and broaden his perspective. It could happen.

How much are competent DSL accounts in your area?

Original post by Oldies. [WordWolf in boldface .] I guess part of my question was how to view the above quote and the quote from Steve. [Amazing you needed this broken-down into plainer English. This is composed of five parts: A) the plagiarism/fraud and harm to others B) I gained knowledge C) "I got mine" D) "Who cares if you suffer?" The first three words are "I don't care." This is repeated at the end. The emphasis is NOT about what possible gain was received- rather, how that gain was used as an excuse to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others. It's the same attitude that allows corrupt businessmen to exhort all their Enron employees to keep buying shares in Enron-their company- while liquidating all their stock because they thought it was going to fall. Few people would be so silly to claim it would be wrong to make money. However, there was public outrage on this. Because they made money? NO, NOT because they made money. The OUTRAGE was because they were numb and apathetic to the sufferings of others. Worse, their financial gain was at the PRICE of the economic impoverishment of employees living paycheck to paycheck-which THEY orchestrated and arranged. ] [Or, to make it simpler, in deference to you, Oldies, "I DON'T CARE. I GOT MINE-WHO CARES IF YOU SUFFER?" ] I could ignore them, but wanted to really think about it and see if there was a way to view those things positively or try to see where these folks were coming from. All I could see was that maybe renouncing the Word was what they were talking about without really saying it. [ Well, if "that's all you could see", then you should be concerned that your vision lacks range. ] Even though I am cognizant that VPW was a flawed man who didn't live circumspectly, as the bible mandates a man of God should, thereby hurting others -- should I feel bad that "I Got Mine"? No, you should feel bad that OTHERS SUFFERED, particularly due to the man and the framework that you feel you've received so much benefit from. ] ["A flawed man who didn't live circumspectly"- is this your way of saying "he raped women, he pretended to research and discover what he didn't, he used God's money for his luxuries, and he fired people to cover his tracks?" If not, perhaps you should consider that THESE are what we object to. If SO, then perhaps you might consider that using such an extreme euphemism sweeps greivous sin, felonies and suffering under the rug.] By the way, I still view the "I Got Mine" as GOD meeting my needs via twi, so to see something bad about "I Got Mine" would be in essence to renounce God working in my life. And that's not an easy thing or even a smart thing for me to do. [ twi's operation was at the expense of others, who suffered, and you don't care. Consider this analogy: A man receives financial benefit from investing in "vpw Investing". He gets his money with interest, and is happy. Later, he finds out that 'vpw Investing' was a fraudulent corporation that operated on a ponzi scheme. When it came time for this investor to get his money and interest, 'vpw Investing' had spent it, so they robbed a bank serving a retirement community and used the deposits to pay him and other investors. Upon seeing this in the news, and the special reports on how the Sunset Retirement Home's residents were now bankrupt and were forced to move out and had no place to live and nothing to live on, the investor says "how sad" and goes about his business. After all, that is a sad story, but he got his investment and doesn't see the need to feel in any way complicit in the robbery..even though the news showed that's exactly where his money came from. After all, he got his money, who cares that the others suffered? ] If something is wrong with the fact that "I Got Mine", I'd like to know what. That fact that we got something from God is good, isn't it? ["The blessing of the LORD, it makes rich, and He adds no sorrow with it." The blessing of twi, it benefits some and beats down others. Why is it so difficult to see that these are two different things? ] If nothing is wrong with the fact that "I Got Mine", then would it be fair to say that the statement is nothing more than a put-down? or even perhaps a slap in God's face, since He was the one who gave me "Mine"? [ Your assumption that it was God who provided the "benefits" you received from twi turns this into a trick question. What's wrong with you getting yours is that it came at the expense of others suffering. If you had gotten yours by robbing someone on the street, there would be something wrong with THAT, too. ] [ The emphasis and point is about the SUFFERING OF OTHERS. You "got yours", but others SUFFERED AS A RESULT. ] [so, let's be clear here. Are you saying God is complicit in the rapes and plagiarism? Someone else here made that claim. ] I guess it's the idea some folks might think, by their statements, that those of us who are still thankful for their past relations with twi seem to come off (to them) as "not caring that others suffered"? Where does that come from, and how is it that these folks say that? [it's the continual whitewashing of the felonies and rapes that we object to. ] ["Where does that come from?" When people's lives were devastated by the direct action of vpw, you call them liars and claim they're not telling the truth. EVERY. TIME. Any time testimony comes up about actions vpw took that damaged others, you've engaged in a campaign of rewriting events and hiding eyewitness accounts and documents. EVERYBODY here for more than a few months has seen that. You've done it the whole time I've been here, plus the older GSC board. Do you refuse to acknowledge that is the content, intent and purpose of a large percentage of your posts here? ] Of course I care that others suffered and things went wrong. Duh. What reasonable person wouldn't? The question is, what is the appropriate response, knowing these things? [ According to you, THERE ARE NO OTHERS SUFFERING, and vpw didn't rape any women. I've read your posts. Duh. What is the appropriate response to someone trying to hide the facts, lives and eyewitness accounts? ] And so what is to be learned and what should be the godly response to the above quote from Wordwolf, if any? [ How about genuine sorrow over callousness in response to the suffering of others? How about at least neutrality in response to them, which is an improvement to calling them liars? A more appropriate response might be a desire to offer amends to someone, somewhere, someone who suffered because you got yours. However, ceasing to injure them further by ceasing to attack their character would be a step in the right direction. ] I'm going to read and consider and hope somebody can write something that makes sense, cause I can't make sense of it right now. [based on previous posts and previous encounter, none of this will "make sense" to you. It WILL make sense to almost everyone else. However, you CAN change your mind at any time. We'll see. ] [iT'S NOT WRONG TO BENEFIT-IT IS WRONG TO BENEFIT FROM THE SUFFERING OF OTHERS. IT IS NOT WRONG TO SEEK THE TRUTH-IT IS WRONG TO CAUSE OTHERS TO SUFFER WHO SEEK TO EXPOSE LIES AND DECEIT. ]

Thanks for chiming in, Belle. If I can ask one follow-up question... Around what year did you join twi? I'm thinking the odds are in favour of that being in the 1990's or later.... Feel free to confirm that or say I'm wrong.

So... do ANY posters here remember being "loyal to the Limb" or anything equivalent? Did the other posters swim against the stream of exiting members? Please don't let me or anyone else make assumptions about you.....

I don't think ANYONE suggested that, Oakspear, but that doesn't seem to stop Oldiesman from demonizing and labelling fellow-Christians who don't believe exactly the same way he does. After all, he learned how to do exactly that from "THE Teacher".

Who expects "perfection"? Anyone here ever say that they expected perfection? - Another strawman. Let's cut to the chase. This is about Wierwille and those of us that point out and expose his "sins". We are being falsely portrayed as expecting perfection, when we do no such thing. Wierwille was supposed to be a Christian leader, a pastor, a teacher, an evangelist and to some an apostle. The Bible establishes clear and concise minimum standards for those who are to lead within the church. What is expected is not perfection, but rather for those who seek to lead to meet those minimum standards - no more - no less. Wierwille (and quite a few others in TWI and in Christianity in general) did/do not meet those minimum standards and were/are therefore unfit to be leaders within the body of Christ. At least as good as I would have said it. :)-->

Hm. Seems a number of people here were NOT mindless drones who just followed the herd.....

I'll answer my own questions, in the interest of disclosure. A) If your Limb stayed, and you thought twi was wrong, would you have stayed, or left? Did this happen in your life? My position when I "signed on" was that twi was the tops, and if anyone else outperformed twi, even if twi was not in error, I would leave. So, if I had needed to leave alone, I would have. My Limb left en masse in 1989, when lcm demanded an oath of allegiance. B) If your Limb left, and you thought twi was right, would you have left, or stayed? Did this happen in your life? If it had happened, I would have stayed. C) Was the opinion of your Branch/Territory/Limb/Regional coordinator a deciding factor in your decision to leave? Hardly. I listened to each and made my own decisions. D) Would you still be in today if you had not been kicked out/marked and avoided by them? (If this applies to you.) N/A. E) Did you attempt to communicate with on-grounds staff before you decided to leave, or to stay? Did that communication figure into your decision? I spoke to a lot of people, some on staff, and some just from different areas, most of them at least semi-loyal to twi. Their input helped solidify my opinion, especially the responses I got from the on-site staff and higher-ups, which I judged to be error at the time it was spoken.

I didn't know how to make a poll that would accept multiple possible answers. So, I open this for discussion. It has been opined that an overwhelming number of people left because they followed the crowd out. So, I ask the posters here, please consider carefully, and answer truthfully. A) If your Limb stayed, and you thought twi was wrong, would you have stayed, or left? Did this happen in your life? B) If your Limb left, and you thought twi was right, would you have left, or stayed? Did this happen in your life? C) Was the opinion of your Branch/Territory/Limb/Regional coordinator a deciding factor in your decision to leave? D) Would you still be in today if you had not been kicked out/marked and avoided by them? (If this applies to you.) E) Did you attempt to communicate with on-grounds staff before you decided to leave, or to stay? Did that communication figure into your decision?

You probably already knew to go with an "optical" mouse rather than the one that has the ball under it....

That is the crux of the question, isn't it? Inept? Or corrupt?

[ And yes, most people say you can infer motive and intent by an analysis of the methods, goals and results. Unless, of course, ithe result is against one's own interest. ]

Ironically, pc gamers seem to be the home-users that want the most "cutting-edge" computers, since they want the most perfect audiovisual quality added to the fastest microprocessors and most memory. Personally, your pc looks fine for the things I would use it for. I can't offer insight on the things you're asking. However, pm me if you want to discuss cleaning up the pc you've got and making it less likely to roll over and die. Even if it changes none of your plans, it would be worth the time investment to make sure the current machine works. For everything else, the techies here will need to speak.

I believe this is what we were discussing before we were interrupted.

Ok, for those of you tuning in late.... The discussion was about the possible reasons for vpw personally choosing staff assignments for people, when the people who filled them were incompetent or harmful to the rest of God's people when filling the job. There have been eyewitnesses seeing Donna and Rosa-lie in compromising positions and just barely shy of "enflagrante delicto". There have been accounts where it was known that both adults went on vacations together, and their sleeping accomodations-which could easily have been 2 single rooms, a quad room with two double beds, or a big suite (the bod has never skimped on travelling in style)- were arranged where they shared a bed, which, for unmarried adults, is VERY peculiar to US citizens with money (or without money, for that matter)- if there wasn't something else going on. Imogene Allen was a tyrant and anti-people, making her ill-suited to run the Bookstore-requiring her to interact with people all the time. Her personality made work in that department MUCH harder than it needed to be...except, of course, when she was goldbricking and watching her soap operas. Rosa-lie knew how to suck up, and squeezed the life out of anything she was put in charge of. Craig lacked ANY positive trait for a task of the magnitude of running a national ministry, AND raped and molested women-but he was incredibly loyal to vpw, and this allowed him to be placed in positions where his lack of experience and training placed him increasingly ill-suited jobs for him. Supposedly, vpw touted that leaders needed great acumen in matters of the spirit, that they needed to be servants, that they needed to be qualified for their tasks, that they must "walk by the spirit", that they must rely on revelation from God. Now, this means that either he acted with such qualifications, or he did not. =============== If he did NOT, that means he was a fraud and deliberately placed a standard before everyone else that he had no intention of using himself, ever. If he DID, then he carefully considered the functions of each position, and the demonstrated skills and shortcomings of each candidate, and, with considerable deliberation, put people who were incompetent for each job IN those jobs. WORSE, if he DID, then he walked by DIVINE REVELATION and his own GOD told him to put these incompetent people in those jobs. ========= One or the other. Could vpw guarantee that he was qualified people in jobs they would at least perform in a satisfactory fashion, that they were better than someone chosen at random to fill that job? According to Oldiesman, No. Nothing vpw could have done could have done that. "Nothing. No man can guarantee the actions of another." (10/4/04, 12:17am, pg-1 of this thread.) Rascal pointed out that vpw said that the RESULTS showed whether or not supposed actions taken by revelation were REALLY done by revelation or not. That is, if someone claimed to take action by revelation, and the results were "perfect", it probably WAS done by revelation. If someone claimed to take action by revelation, and the results were disastrous, it probably was NOT done by revelation. (Either that, or the god granting it is an idiot.) ====== JustThinking pointed out that, if a person IS placed in such a position, and they're ill-suited, it is the responsibility of their supervisor or director to remove them from that position. Therefore, the possibilities for the unfolding events are as follows: A) vpw puts the right people in the right job, either thru diligence or revelation or both. This is invalidated-we all know they were poorly suited. B) vpw gets "revelation" by a foolish god, and puts the wrong people in the wrong jobs. This means that vpw was a total spiritual incompetent and listened to an error-ridden god. Then, over time, vpw asks his god for revelation about their suitability, and his error-ridden god says that, despite appearances, they're fine where they are. This means the previous result was compounded periodically by his error-ridden god. C) vpw gets "revelation" by a foolish god, and puts the wrong people in the wrong jobs, then, over time, vpw evaluates them by his senses, and judges them fine as they are, evidence to the contrary. This means he has an error-ridden god AND vpw lacks mental discernment expected of any supervisor or manager in the world, let alone the household. D) vpw gets "revelation" by a foolish god, and puts the wrong people in the wrong jobs, then, over time, vpw neither seeks revelation as to their suitability, nor evaluates them by his senses. This means he has an error-ridden god AND vpw lacks the moral integrity and care for the household that is expected of any Christian leader at ANY level. E) vpw uses his own mental facilities to evaluate and place candidates in positions, putting the wrong people in the wrong jobs. This means he lacked the courage of his convictions, and refused to seek divine revelation. THEN this means his own evaluative skills were severely lacking, making him incompetent. Later, vpw gets revelation from an error-ridden god who tells him they're fine. See the previous points. F) vpw uses his own mental facilities, and carefully places the wrong candidates in the wrong jobs. See the previous point. Later, vpw refused to seek revelation on this and uses his own facilities to examine the candidates. This means the man who told us to always seek revelation went out of his way to avoid doing so in critically-important matters, and was ALSO an incompetent in handling this by his understanding. G) vpw declined to use either divine revelation or his own skills to determine the best candidates, and used a criteria OTHER THAN divine revelation or THE RIGHT PERSON FOR THE RIGHT JOB as his determination. The most obvious alternate criteria would be a PERSONAL one- he chose who would suit HIM and not who would suit GOD or the PEOPLE. Does ANYONE see ANY alternate criteria for a supposedly RESPONSIBLE man of God to deliberately install people in jobs that they were unsuited for, as determined by revelation or performance? ================================================ Oldies insisted that he'd be more inclined to accept the earlier explanation if it was backed with logic. So, I provided the post I quoted, which Oldies was disinclined to accept. (Top of page 2, 10/5/04, 12:59am.) He ignored my other points, and seized on the money issue, as if it was all I said. He then said he would need proof before accepting this was done out of a prioritizing of money over God's people, and closed with a pious comment about God being the searcher of people's hearts. (In other words, if an evaluation of vpw's results has a negative outcome, the godly thing is to ignore it. Apparently, this type of thinking took vpw very far back when.) Rascal pointed out that Oldies ignored INCOMPETENCE as the only alternate explanation to CORRUPTION, which Oldies skipped. Oldies characterized the horrible people as the best that were available. When Rascal pointed out that a large number of competent people would have been better choices, Oldies twists this to mean that twi was a competent organization. (What about the idiots in all the authoritative position, then???) Oldies claimed that the existence of good Christians in some places means that the entire organization was good and was entirely composed of good Christians. JustThinking pointed out the derail Oldies deliberately inserted in the thread. Oldies claimed the thread went off-course because it lacked substance. Then Oldies started a new argument by deliberately misquoting Rascal and slapping Rascal's name on it. This had all the honesty of quoting Psalms and saying it says "...there is no God." So, I provided this RECAP for the people in the cheap-seats, and I expanded on my previous point which Oldies claimed was so ungodly. Carry on.

....and more unrealistic to think that, if they DID, he would do anything BUT say they're mistaken, lying, or otherwise not representing objective reality. Further, anything less than an unequivocal comdemnation would be isolated from its context and selectively quoted ad nauseum to try to say exactly the opposite of its intention.

Who said they had a CHOICE about displaying depressing posters in their home? BTW, anyone using the keys in Whiteside's book on Culture would have a field day pointing out the spiritual darkness in this picture. Anybody know if they're still selling it, or is Whiteside still alive and "mark and avoided"?