You and I interpreted Deciderator's post differently. I thought he was drawing a contrast between his heroes and vpw/lcm/et. al. as noted below from the same post you quoted.
So when, as a grown man, I was exposed to those whom some of the rest of youidolized, I did not. I gave respect just like I give respect to anyone who treats me decently. I was not blinded by idol-worship.
I may have misunderstood his meaning, though. Guess he can clarify if he wishes.
I post about my concern of Catcup’s statements as discussed above asking if it is fair for all twi’ers to accept the responsibility for the abuse committed by leadership, or is that asking us to accept misplaced guilt for something we had no knowledge of nor control over.
Sure...It was MY fault because I was there in the motorcoach slipping drugs to young girls so Vic could have his way with them...NOT!
I have enough sins of my own without being implicated in the guilt that resonates within the activities of top twi leaders.
The only people who should accept the responsibilites for twi's abuse are those who were involved with it...most of the rank and file were trying to be good Christians.
You, Catcup, and I all agree that 100% of the responsibility for the abuse lies in the hands of the abusers, and not at the feet of all twi'ers. She explained this in her post #209 in response to my questions. She used the extreme statement as a means of challenging the thought processes of those who thought any good they received was worth the evil underbelly. It is an exageration for emphasis, not to be taken as "fact".
QUOTE(Suda @ Jul 29 2007, 11:09 PM)
It seems illogical to then say that because they enjoyed the goodness of God while associated with twi, that they believe the sacrifice of innocent lives was worth their “blessing.” I have NEVER seen anyone post this.
I have seen many post about this over the past 10 years on WD and GSC. Several posters believe the good accomplished by VPW outweighed the evil he and his organization wrought, they themselves got a lot out of their involvement, their lives were changed in a positive way, and if a few people got hurt along the way, then, well, that's life. Too bad. All the rest must surely be people exaggerating.
It is THAT attitude I detest, and it is that attitude I challenge, because it is that attitude that in its very nature, suggests that the sacrifice of a few virgins was worth what they got out of it. Those who have been around a while and are reading this surely recall right now the names of more than a few posters over the years who have expressed this sentiment.
I appreciated her explaining her reasoning and purpose to me, so that I could understand where she was coming from and what she wanted this illustration to accomplish.
Yes, Suda – that would be best if he clarified the post. I may have misunderstood him. I've highlighted in bold red the statement of his post that got my attention:
...Instead of pretending to know who my heroes have been, let me tell you myself, because I know better than you....
...These kind of men were mighty special. I learned much from them and was comfortable in their presence. Some I knew for decades. There were a number of others like them whom I knew or met socially.
And I will add, without going into detail, that they were all as fallible as you or I or any of those some of you take sport in savaging. I saw and heard things I wish I hadn't.
So when, as a grown man, I was exposed to those whom some of the rest of you idolized, I did not. I gave respect just like I give respect to anyone who treats me decently.
I was not blinded by idol-worship....
It appears to me he put vpw in the same class of people as the heroes he spoke about earlier in the post. He has genuine admiration for people who did the right thing, the exceptional thing in times of battle. The admiration vpw received was undeserved – he had everybody fooled with his impersonation of a man of god. Yeah – we're all fallible – we all sin. vpw let his sins get the best of him….they dominated him.
In the spiritual battle – he wound up working for the enemy of God by hurting the sheep – not an isolated incident, a fleeting moment of weakness – but on a regular basis! And if he wasn't spiking some woman's drink so he could rape her he was poisoning the minds of Corps in-training by showing them his favorite porn video - teaching people that you can so renew your mind that stuff doesn't bother you...his idea of a pure mind was a conscience seared with a hot iron…There is no sporting savagery here. His deception should be exposed, his hypocrisy revealed so that so that the name of the Lord Jesus is magnified. It is a disgrace to the name of Christ to excuse, belittle or rationalize what he did.
I never saw one "porn video" my entire time in residence. That was Tenth Corps. When I took the Advanced Class in Rez, the decision had been made that there would be no more "sensational videos" or sensational cassette tape recordings of "spiritual phenomena or bizarre "possesso" like things. Not that some didn't see the "dog licking female human" video, but, it was not as you said during my time;
he was poisoning the minds of Corps in-training by showing them his favorite porn video
Never ever saw one of the vids of which you speak. Just didn't happen during my time, so, don't lump me in with all of that. I graduated from the Corps, and didn't see anything more than CF and S revisited...
I guess you weren’t “spiritually heavy enough” to handle it when you were in residence . “Fortunately” he deemed our Corps including the Junior Corps “spiritual ready” in 85. [sorry you missed out <_< ]
I never saw one "porn video" my entire time in residence. That was Tenth Corps. When I took the Advanced Class in Rez, the decision had been made that there would be no more "sensational videos" or sensational cassette tape recordings of "spiritual phenomena or bizarre "possesso" like things. Not that some didn't see the "dog licking female human" video, but, it was not as you said during my time;
Never ever saw one of the vids of which you speak. Just didn't happen during my time, so, don't lump me in with all of that. I graduated from the Corps, and didn't see anything more than CF and S revisited...
Jonny - there weren't any 14 year olds at Emporia for VPW to invite to the pajama party where he showed these "doggy videos." As I recall, T-Bone said that he made a point of inviting one teen girl up to the front so he could embarass her with an obsene pen...
I never saw one "porn video" my entire time in residence. That was Tenth Corps. When I took the Advanced Class in Rez, the decision had been made that there would be no more "sensational videos" or sensational cassette tape recordings of "spiritual phenomena or bizarre "possesso" like things. Not that some didn't see the "dog licking female human" video, but, it was not as you said during my time;
Never ever saw one of the vids of which you speak. Just didn't happen during my time, so, don't lump me in with all of that. I graduated from the Corps, and didn't see anything more than CF and S revisited...
Jonny, I saw the beastiality clip at a CFS camp in 1973. Dr. Wierwille ran it in NY.
No big deal, although I do remember a couple of women walking out. And that's another thing, if folks thought it was sooooooooooo bad, they could have walked right out. Wierwille wouldn't have minded.
The purpose of this short video (and I mean SHORT) as explained by Wierwille was to get folks to see stuff they wouldn't normally see, so they wouldn't be shocked by what is going on in the world.
The idea that VP wanted to engage in or wanted us to engage or relish in bestiality and pornography is kakamaymee nonsense.
Jonny, I saw the beastiality clip at a CFS camp in 1973. Dr. Wierwille ran it in NY. No big deal, although I do remember a couple of women walking out. And that's another thing, if folks thought it was sooooooooooo bad, they could have walked right out. Wierwille wouldn't have minded. The whole purpose of this short video (and I mean SHORT) was to get folks to see stuff they wouldn't normally see, so they wouldn't be shocked by what is going on in the world. Does anyone really believe he wanted us to adopt bestiality? What kakamaymee nonsense.
If I remember correctly -- VP felt very uncomfortable showing some of the photos (I don't remember any videos). At least my impression was that he was.
I can understand the exposure being offensive to some. It reminds me of Jesus healing of the lepers. Yucky! I wonder how many followers felt uncomfortable being around Jesus after he touched a leper?
Jonny, I saw the beastiality clip at a CFS camp in 1973. Dr. Wierwille ran it in NY. No big deal, although I do remember a couple of women walking out. And that's another thing, if folks thought it was sooooooooooo bad, they could have walked right out. Wierwille wouldn't have minded. The whole purpose of this short video (and I mean SHORT) was to get folks to see stuff they wouldn't normally see, so they wouldn't be shocked by what is going on in the world. The idea that VP wanted us to engage in bestiality and pornography is kakamaymee nonsense.
Well for the life of me, I fail to see why one has to watch even 1 second of a video like that to be aware that such things go on in the world. And personally, I think being shocked by that is a healthy response that one should retain!!!!
When I took CFS in the early 90's, I was very uncomfortable with all of the nude pictures, etc. Not because I am ashamed of the human body, but because I think there is a proper setting and context for nudity. Add to that, I was sitting in a class with a 13 year old child, who was quite painfully embarassed by the class. Add to that, the coordinator of the class seemed to think it was perfectly appropriate to position two nude barbie dolls in a "69" position on top of the television, even with the 13 year old child in the class.
Jonny, I saw the beastiality clip at a CFS camp in 1973. Dr. Wierwille ran it in NY. No big deal, although I do remember a couple of women walking out. And that's another thing, if folks thought it was sooooooooooo bad, they could have walked right out. Wierwille wouldn't have minded. The whole purpose of this short video (and I mean SHORT) was to get folks to see stuff they wouldn't normally see, so they wouldn't be shocked by what is going on in the world. Does anyone really believe he wanted us to adopt bestiality? What kakamaymee nonsense.
So.. by this logic I should rent XXX movies and show them to my girls...
Sorry, I'm not buying that krap. Take some of the most vial stuff and show it to a bunch of young adults ( I include teens and those in their early twenties here...) so that you can "protect" them from the world - Seems like he became "the world"...
That may have been the public explanation, and the story you feel most comfortable with believing. Did he want us to adopt bestiality? Probably not. That doesn't mean that his motives were purely for teaching purposes - come on,
I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night. <_<
Well for the life of me, I fail to see why one has to watch even 1 second of a video like that to be aware that such things go on in the world. And personally, I think being shocked by that is a healthy response that one should retain!!!!
When I took CFS in the early 90's, I was very uncomfortable with all of the nude pictures, etc. Not because I am ashamed of the human body, but because I think there is a proper setting and context for nudity. Add to that, I was sitting in a class with a 13 year old child, who was quite painfully embarassed by the class. Add to that, the coordinator of the class seemed to think it was perfectly appropriate to position two nude barbie dolls in a "69" position on top of the television, even with the 13 year old child in the class.
Abi, would you not find in some college courses graphic depictions of sexual behavior? I'm just asking -- I've never been to college.
Abi, would you not find in some college courses graphic depictions of sexual behavior? I'm just asking -- I've never been to college.
Well I never took any college courses that had graphic depictions of sexual behavior. Nor can I think of why a course would have need of such. I spent 6 years on a college campus while my mother studied psychology, I don't recall ever hearing of such a course. I live right next to that town now and have a cousin attending that college, still haven't heard of it.
Does it mean it doesn't exist? heck no - there is some weird stuff on college campuses these days!!! But again, I would question the need for such.
One didn't have to watch it, they could have walked out like I saw the two women did.
I don't think the 13 year old girl who took the class when I did had that option. I have a suspicion her parents would not have allowed her to. Likewise, while I could have walked out, I am pretty sure I would have experienced the wrath of God, so to speak, from my leadership and husband if I had.
Well I never took any college courses that had graphic depictions of sexual behavior. Nor can I think of why a course would have need of such. I spent 6 years on a college campus while my mother studied psychology, I don't recall ever hearing of such a course. I live right next to that town now and have a cousin attending that college, still haven't heard of it.
Does it mean it doesn't exist? heck no - there is some weird stuff on college campuses these days!!! But again, I would question the need for such.
“I want you to close your eyes,” Patty Brisben playfully instructs a young man as she rubs scented lotion into his forearm and, to raucous laughter, reaches for an electric toy and a glove. “Fantasize about having an all-over body massage.”
Welcome to Sex Week at Yale, a biennial celebration that has become one of the most provocative campus events in the country.
Schaffer said he is not sure why he lost his job. He was told to look at his student evaluations, but he said they were mostly positive. One unidentified female student, however, blasted his class, he said, saying he "shows naked pictures and videos" and assigned papers that were only an excuse to delve into students' personal lives.
Schaffer said he did show such material and talked about sexually transmitted diseases and any sexual subject a student wanted to discuss.
I may be wrong but, if I recall there was a warning given out that CFS contained graphic sexual material in it.
OMG, Larry!!!! Well, like I said, there is some crazy stuff at college campuses these days. As a parent, I would never spend tuition money for one of my kids to take such a course!!!! Nor, again, do I see the necesity of it.
I am not against sex education courses, but I don't think the Yale example is a necessary version of one. I took sex ed in high school. Not the usual videos of elementary school days, and not a one or two day "seminar". A full semester, credit earning class.
We did not watch any graphic movies or look at graphic pictures. There was no need for it. We did have plenty of very open and honest discussions and debates about sexuality that covered a range of topics from abstinence to homosexuality. We discussed various means of birth control, we discussed gender roles and gender differences. It really was a very good class. But again, there was no need for graphic images of any kind.
I don't think the 13 year old girl who took the class when I did had that option. I have a suspicion her parents would not have allowed her to.
I wouldn't have shown that to the 13 year old, and don't believe Dr. Wierwille would have either. The parents should share some blame for that one too.
I think these things were shown for purposes of outreach. We know a major emphasis in twi was outreach. May sound strange but, not being shocked by what is going on in the world may help when one comes across one of these people and witnesses to them. Instead of acting like Mr. or Mrs. goooodie two shoes but trying to relate and understand where they're at maybe would help motivate them to get out of what they are in.
OMG, Larry!!!! Well, like I said, there is some crazy stuff at college campuses these days. As a parent, I would never spend tuition money for one of my kids to take such a course!!!! Nor, again, do I see the necesity of it.
I am not against sex education courses, but I don't think the Yale example is a necessary version of one. I took sex ed in high school. Not the usual videos of elementary school days, and not a one or two day "seminar". A full semester, credit earning class.
We did not watch any graphic movies or look at graphic pictures. There was no need for it. We did have plenty of very open and honest discussions and debates about sexuality that covered a range of topics from abstinence to homosexuality. We discussed various means of birth control, we discussed gender roles and gender differences. It really was a very good class. But again, there was no need for graphic images of any kind.
I revised my post giving another link on this subject Abi.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
118
103
143
114
Popular Days
Aug 4
146
Jul 30
140
Jul 31
123
Aug 1
99
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 118 posts
oldiesman 103 posts
doojable 143 posts
Larry N Moore 114 posts
Popular Days
Aug 4 2007
146 posts
Jul 30 2007
140 posts
Jul 31 2007
123 posts
Aug 1 2007
99 posts
Popular Posts
Mark Clarke
I still believe those few things, with one qualification. We were taught we didn't go to heaven "right away" as you put it. But they were rather vague about what happens in the end. I believe we do
Catcup
Since leaving TWI, I have kind of devolved back almost to where my beliefs were just before getting into TWI. Although in my family we were raised Southern Baptist, we never believed Jesus was God.
GrouchoMarxJr
Unlike oldies, I believe that the majority of what was taught in pfal was wrong... However, as a Christian, I do believe in "eventual" eternal life and I believe that Jesus was the son of God and not
Suda
T Bone,
You and I interpreted Deciderator's post differently. I thought he was drawing a contrast between his heroes and vpw/lcm/et. al. as noted below from the same post you quoted.
I may have misunderstood his meaning, though. Guess he can clarify if he wishes.
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Sure...It was MY fault because I was there in the motorcoach slipping drugs to young girls so Vic could have his way with them...NOT!
I have enough sins of my own without being implicated in the guilt that resonates within the activities of top twi leaders.
The only people who should accept the responsibilites for twi's abuse are those who were involved with it...most of the rank and file were trying to be good Christians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
Groucho,
You, Catcup, and I all agree that 100% of the responsibility for the abuse lies in the hands of the abusers, and not at the feet of all twi'ers. She explained this in her post #209 in response to my questions. She used the extreme statement as a means of challenging the thought processes of those who thought any good they received was worth the evil underbelly. It is an exageration for emphasis, not to be taken as "fact".
I appreciated her explaining her reasoning and purpose to me, so that I could understand where she was coming from and what she wanted this illustration to accomplish.
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yes, Suda – that would be best if he clarified the post. I may have misunderstood him. I've highlighted in bold red the statement of his post that got my attention:
It appears to me he put vpw in the same class of people as the heroes he spoke about earlier in the post. He has genuine admiration for people who did the right thing, the exceptional thing in times of battle. The admiration vpw received was undeserved – he had everybody fooled with his impersonation of a man of god. Yeah – we're all fallible – we all sin. vpw let his sins get the best of him….they dominated him.
In the spiritual battle – he wound up working for the enemy of God by hurting the sheep – not an isolated incident, a fleeting moment of weakness – but on a regular basis! And if he wasn't spiking some woman's drink so he could rape her he was poisoning the minds of Corps in-training by showing them his favorite porn video - teaching people that you can so renew your mind that stuff doesn't bother you...his idea of a pure mind was a conscience seared with a hot iron…There is no sporting savagery here. His deception should be exposed, his hypocrisy revealed so that so that the name of the Lord Jesus is magnified. It is a disgrace to the name of Christ to excuse, belittle or rationalize what he did.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
T- Bone,
I agree with you completely that exposing the underbelly of vpw is very beneficial. Your synopsis of vpw is excellent, I find no disagreement with it.
Have enjoyed all your posts in this thread. I learn a lot from you. Thank you.
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
I never saw one "porn video" my entire time in residence. That was Tenth Corps. When I took the Advanced Class in Rez, the decision had been made that there would be no more "sensational videos" or sensational cassette tape recordings of "spiritual phenomena or bizarre "possesso" like things. Not that some didn't see the "dog licking female human" video, but, it was not as you said during my time;
Never ever saw one of the vids of which you speak. Just didn't happen during my time, so, don't lump me in with all of that. I graduated from the Corps, and didn't see anything more than CF and S revisited...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I guess you weren’t “spiritually heavy enough” to handle it when you were in residence
. “Fortunately” he deemed our Corps including the Junior Corps “spiritual ready” in 85. [sorry you missed out <_< ]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Jonny - there weren't any 14 year olds at Emporia for VPW to invite to the pajama party where he showed these "doggy videos." As I recall, T-Bone said that he made a point of inviting one teen girl up to the front so he could embarass her with an obsene pen...
He had to pick his audience... <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Jonny, I saw the beastiality clip at a CFS camp in 1973. Dr. Wierwille ran it in NY.
No big deal, although I do remember a couple of women walking out. And that's another thing, if folks thought it was sooooooooooo bad, they could have walked right out. Wierwille wouldn't have minded.
The purpose of this short video (and I mean SHORT) as explained by Wierwille was to get folks to see stuff they wouldn't normally see, so they wouldn't be shocked by what is going on in the world.
The idea that VP wanted to engage in or wanted us to engage or relish in bestiality and pornography is kakamaymee nonsense.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
If I remember correctly -- VP felt very uncomfortable showing some of the photos (I don't remember any videos). At least my impression was that he was.
I can understand the exposure being offensive to some. It reminds me of Jesus healing of the lepers. Yucky! I wonder how many followers felt uncomfortable being around Jesus after he touched a leper?
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Larry I revised my post. Man you are quick! :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Well for the life of me, I fail to see why one has to watch even 1 second of a video like that to be aware that such things go on in the world. And personally, I think being shocked by that is a healthy response that one should retain!!!!
When I took CFS in the early 90's, I was very uncomfortable with all of the nude pictures, etc. Not because I am ashamed of the human body, but because I think there is a proper setting and context for nudity. Add to that, I was sitting in a class with a 13 year old child, who was quite painfully embarassed by the class. Add to that, the coordinator of the class seemed to think it was perfectly appropriate to position two nude barbie dolls in a "69" position on top of the television, even with the 13 year old child in the class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
So.. by this logic I should rent XXX movies and show them to my girls...
Sorry, I'm not buying that krap. Take some of the most vial stuff and show it to a bunch of young adults ( I include teens and those in their early twenties here...) so that you can "protect" them from the world - Seems like he became "the world"...
That may have been the public explanation, and the story you feel most comfortable with believing. Did he want us to adopt bestiality? Probably not. That doesn't mean that his motives were purely for teaching purposes - come on,
I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Yes I do believe his motives were purely for teaching purposes. He didn't promote beastiality.
Larry, I don't remember photos but do remember videos. :)
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Abi, would you not find in some college courses graphic depictions of sexual behavior? I'm just asking -- I've never been to college.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
One didn't have to watch it, they could have walked out like I saw the two women did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Well I never took any college courses that had graphic depictions of sexual behavior. Nor can I think of why a course would have need of such. I spent 6 years on a college campus while my mother studied psychology, I don't recall ever hearing of such a course. I live right next to that town now and have a cousin attending that college, still haven't heard of it.
Does it mean it doesn't exist? heck no - there is some weird stuff on college campuses these days!!! But again, I would question the need for such.
I don't think the 13 year old girl who took the class when I did had that option. I have a suspicion her parents would not have allowed her to. Likewise, while I could have walked out, I am pretty sure I would have experienced the wrath of God, so to speak, from my leadership and husband if I had.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11414223/
I'm sure I can find other examples.
P.S. Here's another one.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05275/580618.stm
Schaffer said he is not sure why he lost his job. He was told to look at his student evaluations, but he said they were mostly positive. One unidentified female student, however, blasted his class, he said, saying he "shows naked pictures and videos" and assigned papers that were only an excuse to delve into students' personal lives.
Schaffer said he did show such material and talked about sexually transmitted diseases and any sexual subject a student wanted to discuss.
I may be wrong but, if I recall there was a warning given out that CFS contained graphic sexual material in it.
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
OMG, Larry!!!! Well, like I said, there is some crazy stuff at college campuses these days. As a parent, I would never spend tuition money for one of my kids to take such a course!!!! Nor, again, do I see the necesity of it.
I am not against sex education courses, but I don't think the Yale example is a necessary version of one. I took sex ed in high school. Not the usual videos of elementary school days, and not a one or two day "seminar". A full semester, credit earning class.
We did not watch any graphic movies or look at graphic pictures. There was no need for it. We did have plenty of very open and honest discussions and debates about sexuality that covered a range of topics from abstinence to homosexuality. We discussed various means of birth control, we discussed gender roles and gender differences. It really was a very good class. But again, there was no need for graphic images of any kind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I wouldn't have shown that to the 13 year old, and don't believe Dr. Wierwille would have either. The parents should share some blame for that one too.
I think these things were shown for purposes of outreach. We know a major emphasis in twi was outreach. May sound strange but, not being shocked by what is going on in the world may help when one comes across one of these people and witnesses to them. Instead of acting like Mr. or Mrs. goooodie two shoes but trying to relate and understand where they're at maybe would help motivate them to get out of what they are in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I revised my post giving another link on this subject Abi.
The world is a changing -- isn't it? :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
.... as the two women did and as everyone else should have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think that'd be up to the individual Raffy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.