False Prophet or Good Minister with problems?

[rascal]

The scriptures convict wierwille of being a false prophet....that is good enough for me.

You are the one attacking innocent people in defense of the criminal wierwille like some kind of bottom feeding attorney

[Larry N Moore]

The scriptures convict wierwille of being a false prophet....that is good enough for me.

Before you can accuse someone of being a false prophet you first have to define what a prophet is. The TWI's definition was/is: A prophet is anyone who speaks for God. Do you agree with that definition?

You are the one attacking innocent people in defense of the criminal wierwille like some kind of bottom feeding attorney

I have done no such thing, my dear. You simply don't understand what I'm doing. I'm questioning people's perceptions and recollections. If that bothers you then do the prudent thing -- put me on ignore.

[rascal]

I have no problem with you questioning peoples recollections and perceptions, what I have a problem with is you labeling those recollections and perceptions as lies because they don`t line up with that which you wish to believe.

[Larry N Moore]

I have no problem with you questioning peoples recollections and perceptions, what I have a problem with is you labeling those recollections and perceptions as lies because they don`t line up with that which you wish to believe.

My dear, I really don't care what you believe. And I don't recall calling someone a liar. I can only do that if I happened to have been a witness to events that they claim occurred. Having doubts about claims made is not the same as calling someone a liar. I just don't KNOW if the claims are true.

[WordWolf]

Well, you're trying to justify his time spent here.

Actually, I challenged your insinuation that it there is a problem with the fact that

"a full-time minister has ANY time to be here at all."

It seems to me that you implied he comes here during his "down-time" from actually ministering to his flock. I consider that to be the same as saying -- he does it for recreational reasons.

No-but that he comes here during his discretionary TIME.

I often can use my discretionary time doing things that directly benefit others.

I think when Juedes does that here, he's benefitting others.

You disagree- or are insinuating you disagree.

(Frankly, I prefer when you say it outright.)

I don't see anything in the Bible that justifies what he's doing.

Others do. They see a direct correlation between Biblical warnings and people using the Bible to warn,

and warn that others are supposedly using the Bible and are not.

He believes it's part of his ministry and I'd like to know where in the Bible does it speak of Christians having such a ministry.

Where did he say it was "part of his ministry?"

And how did you go in the same sentence from

"part of his ministry" to "such a ministry?"

You went from nowhere to "he believes it's PART of his ministry"

and from there to it being his ENTIRE ministry.

Quite a set of leaps there.

I'm sure you're aware of the passage that exhorts us to redeem our time because the days are evil. Was that an exhortation to expose false prophets or an exhortation to reach out to those who haven't heard of and accepted Jesus as their Lord?

That is correct!

It is an exhortion to expose false prophets

AND to reach out to those who haven't heard of and accepted Jesus as their Lord,

as well as many OTHER things.

Obviously, it's not to you.

YOU brought it up.

Oh, so you're a bit selective in who you wish to help escape from the clutches of false prophets and doctrine. Fair enuf. :)

No, I acknowledge I don't have infinite time, and address what I choose to address.

I cannot help the entire world myself.

I have neither the time nor the skills to do so.

I address that which I have the time and skills to do so, and trust God to raise up others to handle the rest.

I notice you do much the same-you post here and don't spend your days in meetings exposing other groups,

or even on websites doing the same. But when I do it, you're suggesting it's wrong, when you're doing it,

that's perfectly fine.

Now, then,

I said

"Feel free to go to THOSE websites and discuss THOSE topics at THOSE websites.

Or even to make a website that focuses on all three.

Or participate at an existing one that does all three."

and Larry distorted the meaning of that and said that I said

Nice dodge! Translation: Why don't you stfu!

Turning a rather practical consideration-I can only do so much- and pointing out that his sudden concern for

victims of other groups can be served rather practically by him TRYING TO HELP THEM rather than saying

I should be out there trying to help them, trying to convince me to help them, or criticizing me for not

being out there helping them.

He's free to do that. Instead, he turns THAT into "stfu."

That's illogical. And inflammatory.

Sure you are but, let's be honest about it. You're not interested in rescuing people who have been hoodwinked and blinded by false prophets and doctrine.

Yes I am.

And I'm qualified to help those who were hoodwinked and blinded by false prophets and doctrine in twi.

So those are the ones I help there.

I also help OTHER Christians I'm qualified to help.

That's to hear them say it, when they thank me for helping them.

You're only interested in . . . hmm . . . denigrating TWI because of what it DID to you. It's a personal thingy.

It's HARDLY personal. I rarely discuss "what it did to me."

And when I do, it's with the purpose of passing along information, or in a dialogue that passes along information.

Sometimes, I even conclude that something that might have been complaint-worthy actually was NOT.

I started at least two threads where those were the conclusions.

Which means that we learned some things that DIDN'T denigrate twi.

I also have posted on threads that don't denigrate twi, and have posted posts that don't.

But feel free to ignore them if they trouble your worldview so...

[rascal]

Well I do recall it, friend.

The fellow you defend was scum. According to scriptures, the guys that do what he did were not of the spirit....this makes his doctrine highly suspect.

I think your defense of him and need to attack the people who reveal his sickness makes you of questionable character as well.

[WordWolf]

I'm questioning people's perceptions and recollections.

So,

suggesting that any real Christian minister who posted here at all was neglecting his job,

or that any Christian layman who posted here on twi but not on any other group,

were in some way neglecting working for God or acting inappropriately,

those fit some definition of yours of

"questioning people's perceptions and recollections."

Those are non-standard definitions you use.

[Larry N Moore]

Well I do recall it, friend.

The fellow you defend was scum. According to scriptures, the guys that do what he did were not of the spirit....this makes his doctrine highly suspect.

Well, I suppose if you at one time followed "his" doctrine then that makes you guilty of being scum also. But now that you've been delivered from the cesspool of iniquity called TWI you now are a saint.

I think your defense of him and need to attack the people who reveal his sickness makes you of questionable character as well.

I'll let the over hundreds of guests who don't post here make that judgment. Your opinion doesn't bother me in the least.

[rascal]

Yeah, I am guilty of being decieved and following the doctrine of a false prophet...So what?

I never misrepresented myself as a minister ...God`s spokesman. I never utilized that as authority to steal kill and destroy from the innocent......

This is about false prophets and ravening wolves dressed in sheeps clothing that devour God`s sheep.

[Larry N Moore]

Yeah, I am guilty of being decieved and following the doctrine of a false prophet...So what?

Oh, but did you get other people to follow it?

I never misrepresented myself as a minister ...God`s spokesman. I never utilized that as authority to steal kill and destroy from the innocent......

Well, if you at any time got someone else to follow it then you weren't speaking for God -- you only thought you were.

This is about false prophets and ravening wolves dressed in sheeps clothing that devour God`s sheep.

Yes. So was John a sheep or a wolf in sheep's clothing when he took the PFAL class?

[rascal]

Larry, don`t you find it the least bit incongruous that you defend a lying, adulterous, alcoholic, who treated the people entrusted to him like no more than a resource to be utilized and thrown away when all usefullness was exhausted...a criminal who drugged and raped the young followers who couldn`t be seduced or bullied....

Yet you are relentless in your attack of the people who were decieved, used, and suffered at his hands and under the policies that he enacted?

Doesn`t that strike you as wierd that your contempt is resereved for the people endured the mistreatment, rather than the creep who perpetrated the acts?

[WordWolf]

Remember when this thread was about vpw?

Funny how someone keeps changing it specifically into about someone else.

Not in exploring the initial question, either- it's a deliberate subject CHANGE.

Can it be that someone wants to make this thread NOT about whether vpw was a false prophet

or false servant of God, or whether he was actually a good minister?

Maybe.

[rascal]

Larry, I was never a false prophet who represented myself as a minister, God`s spokesman. I never utilized that as the authority to steal that which didn`t belong to me. That is what this thread is about.

Sure, I have my own sins to answere for, that is the invariable results of following a false prophet and embracing false doctrines that distance us from God.

[WordWolf]

Larry, don`t you find it the least bit incongruous that you defend a lying, adulterous, alcoholic, who treated the people entrusted to him like no more than a resource to be utilized and thrown away when all usefullness was exhausted...a criminal who drugged and raped the young followers who couldn`t be seduced or bullied....

Yet you are relentless in your attack of the people who were decieved, used, and suffered at his hands and under the policies that he enacted?

Doesn`t that strike you as wierd that your contempt is resereved for the people endured the mistreatment, rather than the creep who perpetrated the acts?

See, rascal,

if someone lies and destroys the reputation of someone,

and the person who did it was vpw,

that's perfectly fine.

So, when he did that with women who refused him, kicking them off the field,

calling them possessed, and forbidding twi'ers to have contact with them,

that's ok because it was vpw and he must have had a good reason to do it.

If someone reports that vpw did that,

they they're lying and destroying the reputation of vpw,

and that's wrong.

vpw gets a special exemption from all rules of conduct and doctrine,

and anyone who disagrees is to be shouted down, insulted, or belittled.

it's that simple.

[Larry N Moore]

Larry, don`t you find it the least bit incongruous that you defend a lying, adulterous, alcoholic, who treated the people entrusted to him like no more than a resource to be utilized and thrown away when all usefullness was exhausted...a criminal who drugged and raped the young followers who couldn`t be seduced or bullied....

Rascal don't you find it a bit unreasonable that someone should swallow someone's claims without having first-hand knowledge of whether it's true or not?

Yet you are relentless in your attack of the people who were decieved, used, and suffered at his hands and under the policies that he enacted?

Like I said Rascal, if it bothers you -- simply put me on ignore. But don't show yourself to be a fool by personally attacking me. It's a well-known fallacious argument called -- Two wrongs don't make a right.

Doesn`t that strike you as wierd that your contempt is resereved for the people endured the mistreatment, rather than the creep who perpetrated the acts?

I have no contempt for you. That's called self-projection. You're delusional, my dear.

[WordWolf]

You're delusional, my dear.

So,

it's wrong for a man of God to address errors and hurts among ONE group of Christians

unless he's prepared to visit ALL groups of Christians,

(as characterized by posting about errors and hurts in twi but not ALL groups),

but it's a perfectly-efficient use of a Christian layman's time to post that a fellow Christian is

"delusion",

and this is either harmless or some version of ministering grace to the hearer.

[rascal]

Larry, you have had plenty of first hand information that you have chosen to ignore. You chose instead to vilify those who presented the information.

Me being foolish? Delusional?? No doubt if you label me as such, it makes it appear more acceptable to dismiss the merit of my pov.

[Larry N Moore]

So,

it's wrong for a man of God to address errors and hurts among ONE group of Christians

unless he's prepared to visit ALL groups of Christians,

(as characterized by posting about errors and hurts in twi but not ALL groups),

but it's a perfectly-efficient use of a Christian layman's time to post that a fellow Christian is

"delusion",

and this is either harmless or some version of ministering grace to the hearer.

:) Like I said (elsewhere, if not in this thread) WW I'm not in the rescuing business any more. So I have all the time in the world to participate here. However, if I was to return to actively reaching out to those seeking God -- you wouldn't find me here. Maybe you should start a 24 hr prayer vigil that Larry gets back into his former ministry and then your problem will be solved. ;)

[WordWolf]

Rascal don't you find it a bit unreasonable that someone should swallow someone's claims without having first-hand knowledge of whether it's true or not?

I'll break it down in case you're interested in seeing the difference.

In courts of law, they are almost entirely concerned with reconstruction of exactly what happened at a specific

place and time, both in what occurred, and WHY it occurred, what each person was THINKING.

Every day, in courts all over the world, they do their best to determine this, and judgements are handed down

based on their best abilities to reconstruct what happened.

Except for incidents that bring in videotape, all of that relies on eyewitness testimony in the majority.

========

Since the court is unable to obtain first-hand knowledge of whether any eyewitness' testimony is true or not,

according to you, it is "a bit unreasonable" to suppose they can be relied on to even the smallest degree.

What the court does, is invoke the examination and the cross-examination,

and compare the testimony, examination and cross-examination of ALL witnesses.

Often, it seems amazingly straightforward to see what happened- eyewitnesses that were neutral and have

no reason to lie all agreed to the smallest degree.

This is sometimes based on Biblical injunctions.

Deuteronomy 17:5-7 (King James Version)

5Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

6At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

7The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

Deuteronomy 19:15 (King James Version)

15One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

Matthew 18:16 (King James Version)

16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

2 Corinthians 13:1 (King James Version)

1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

1 Timothy 5:19-20 (King James Version)

19Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

20Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

Hebrews 10:28 (King James Version)

28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

So, according to GOD ALMIGHTY,

it is sensible and recommended, that the testimony of witnesses be considered and weighed,

and when more than one agree, it strengths their testimony.

When 2 or 3 agree, it is to be considered reliable.

In the case of vpw, which you were suggesting,

many, many people have provided direct, first-person testimony.

Under the judgement of GOD ALMIGHTY,

that's considered reliable.

In short, REASONABLE.

The "swallowing" of their claims, that is, the idea that anyone here would automatically embrace any of them,

that's an invention of those who have no desire to examine the testimony of 2 or 3 (or many more)

witnesses, which GOD ALMIGHTY determined to be sufficient, and necessary, to make a judgement.

I certainly didn't begin thinking vpw did evil. However, when MANY, MANY witnessed provided testimony,

I agreed with God Almighty that such things were established in their mouths.

I don't know of ANYONE who FIRST heard the evils vpw did, and, lacking personal experience of them,

said "that's got to be true."

However, it's a convenient fiction-convenient for those who wish to stop their ears to the testimony of the

witnesses- to pretend that happened all the time.

[Larry N Moore]

So, according to GOD ALMIGHTY,

it is sensible and recommended, that the testimony of witnesses be considered and weighed,

and when more than one agree, it strengths their testimony.

When 2 or 3 agree, it is to be considered reliable.

Well, if you're going to put it that way (no pun intended) then should the "witnesses" still involved in TWI not be counted as a testimony? I know you would prefer to call them unreliable and deceived but, you can't have your cake and eat it too. ;)

[WordWolf]

Well, if you're going to put it that way (no pun intended) then should the "witnesses" still involved in TWI not be counted as a testimony? I know you would prefer to call them unreliable and deceived but, you can't have your cake and eat it too. ;)

I never said they shouldn't count. Ever.

This "prefer to call them unreliable and deceived" thing didn't come from my posts.

But, hey, if you're better able to handle reading my posts by changing their content, well, that's your business.

[Larry N Moore]

I never said they shouldn't count. Ever.

Well, for each "witness" you call forward I imagine I could find one from TWI that says otherwise. So where's that leave us? Stalemated.

This "prefer to call them unreliable and deceived" thing didn't come from my posts.

So, are you now stating that any current member of TWI might be a reliable source for truth? And are you now stating that any member or former member who rejects your claims isn't in a state of self-deception?

But, hey, if you're better able to handle reading my posts by changing their content, well, that's your business.

I can only work with the hand I'm dealt. Maybe you should consider giving up the job of dealing. Especially if you're going to deal from the bottom of the deck. :)

[johnj]

Well, John, here is where you've gotten it wrong. I accept your freedom to criticize VP's plagerism, etc., etc., etc. I don't "buy" it all. I do, however, think that you fail to give him any credit for anything and therefore can't help thinking that you're not entirely objective or honest. Just my opinion, mind you. I imagine you think VP was from the Devil... and therefore if he did anything worth praise, in a sense you might feel you're praising the Devil.

Paul gives qualifications for overseers/ deacons/ church leaders, and knows that many will not meet them and will not be fit to be church leaders. But he doesn't say that you must give credit to the ones who fail to meet the qualifications. It's real simple. If they don't qualify, don't credit them as being fit for leadership, and don't look up to them as leaders and teachers. I never said he was from the devil, but VPW certainly was unfit.

In the same way, Jesus (and several parts of the Bible) note that there are false prophets. Jesus says to them, "depart from me I never knew you." He doesn't say, "let me give credit to you for the good you've done." Men qualify to be looked up to and respected as overseers/ teachers/ prophets/ etc- or they don't. One or the other, ("pregnant or not"). It's plain VPW didn't qualify as early as 1957, and never did thereafter. Literally thousands of people would have avoided a great deal of emptional pain and spiritual trouble if they'd have recognized 50 years ago that he didn't/doesn't qualify and if they'd have looked to qualified teachers instead. He still doesn't qualify, and as a result, his books don't belong on the shelf.

[Ham]

Tit 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

What I can't understand.. are the thought processes that conclude "well, he got one on the list right.."

I don't think the lifestyle described here is exactly a multiple choice exam, where one picks one from the list as the answer..

Edited September 6, 2007 by Mr. Hammeroni

[Ham]

apt to teach

Interesting that this one is the last on the list..

Maybe putting on a charismatic presentation to cover up character flaws isn't "all it's cracked up to be."..