Yeah.. sure.. Only if you also want to add Hitler to the list.. Since he also felt like he was doing God's work..
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
""My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
This thread is like so many others; it's like those movies and cop shows where they go to the shooting range, clip a target on the wire, zoom it back as far as they want, then shoot at it, zoom it back to them and you see bullet holes in the head and heart areas.
I got to admit this one used more imagination than the average, but the first post just neatly listed the targets single file and didn't even have to zoom it anywhere, just fire away. Never gets old, does it?
OM - Ask a few of the clergy who left TWI early...
LCM referred to them as being "seed," "born of the devil," and such.
These are men that VP and he chose for ordination. They went through the corps and they spoke in tongues for years.
Go ahead, start a thread asking if anyone remembers a clergy member being called "seed." See if maybe a few of the clergy themselves answer you.
I keep telling you - the goalposts got moved.
Doojable,
Before I go accusing the Way of new doctrine, i.e, now teaching that born again believers can turn into the devil's children, I would have to find out from the source. I suspect that if these things were said by LCM, that Craig was perhaps performing one of his rants. But I really don't know.
If you can prove that TWI now teaches that, go ahead. But my previous statement that those ex-way who are calling Goey a child of the devil "must not respect VPW's teachings too much any more" to refer to him that way, makes perfect sense to me.
Before I go accusing the Way of new doctrine, i.e, now teaching that born again believers can turn into the devil's children, I would have to find out from the source. I suspect that if these things were said by LCM, that Craig was perhaps performing one of his rants. But I really don't know.
If you can prove that TWI now teaches that, go ahead. But my previous statement that those ex-way who are calling Goey a child of the devil "must not respect VPW's teachings too much any more" to refer to him that way, makes perfect sense to me.
The practice was started right after POP.
I bet you can find people who said they were supposed to avoid a certain leader because he was seed.
Why is that statement necessarily false or exaggerated? Becasue you say so? Because it can't (in your opinion) be proven in a reasonable way? We be believe God exists. According to your method of reason that would be false and exaggerated. It cannot be universally proved. Simply because something cannot be proved does not make it false, it just makes it unproved.
On the other hand, If that statement can be proven false, then I would actually have no problem calling that person a liar. Can it be proven either way? I think it can, but only to an objective mind that is capable of honesty weighing the evidence.
BTW, what is false about it?
That anyone died
That the ones that died were innocent
That VPW had a role in it
Go ahead Oldies. Let's see you prove it false.
Goey,
It is not my burden to prove it false. I opined that the statement "innocents died at VP's hands" was a false accusation. That is my opinion. If Rascal or you or anyone else wants to prove the statement to be true, thereby proving my opinion to be false, go right ahead and try to.
BTW, nice try in changing the meaning of Rascal's statement "innocents died at VP's hands" to "VPW had a role in it". :) :lol:
I am reasonably sure Rascal meant EXACTLY as I took it, that VPW was directly responsible for the deaths of people...
I do not want to dig, but in poor Doreen's thread on PFAL:
Excath finally, after years of dribbling out bits of what happened, put it all in a comprehensive post. It took her that many years to come to terms with the "Moggie" being a rapist. She started talking about how he was SICK and exposed himself... leading to her claims of rape.
And you said something to her like maybe SHE chose HIM.
That is saying without the SAME words, you are lying, he did not rape you, you are not a victim infact it was your decision - you chose him
Frankly, that was so shocking - I would have rather you called her a liar out right - it would have been less cruel.
So, in you 4,000 posts you may not have technically called people a "liar" but you have ripped the souls from injured people by your callouse statements, cast unbelief on their accounts and victimized victims. You do not get a "pass" because you cleverly did not use the actual word "LIAR".
IMO you were much more damaging. Being called a liar would have been pleasent compared to the destruction you have done.
Dot Matrix,
For someone who doesn't want to dig, you sure did here.
But please spare me the condescending guilt trip routine. I was rendering an opinion to something Excathedra said. We are allowed to do that here. I didn't doubt her testimony, or call her a liar. If you don't see the difference, that's not my problem.
And BTW, Excathedra is a big girl and doesn't need you to be her nursemaid and mother hen. She's a big girl and can speak for and defend herself. If she was offended and hurt by my post, she can call me on it herself, or PM me privately anytime.
And just because you closely know someone who CHOSE to sleep with all the hayseeds does not mean everyone else was interested, some of us could get dates on our own, and were not interested in hickville as a "spawning" pond. We truly were seeking Jesus.
WOW! here you have maligned a fellow believer in Christ, one who has done you no harm. Does your nastiness and cattiness have no bounds? Are you mad at me so that gives you license to try to hurt someone else in the process? What is wrong with you?
You have based your statement on vicious rumors, backbiting and innuendo. No proof at all, yet you state this as happening, manner of factly. You are pitiful and petty.
You tried to hurt people by that statement, but I think all you've done is damage your own credibility. Imagine, one of the premier anti-Wierwille attack-dog-storytellers engaging in vicious rumor and innuendo.
Is it possible.. he was the "mogster".. a "nice guy".. well.
He paid for abortions..
no, he didn't pay.. he took MY abs, and used it to pay for abortions.
Without my permission.
a "man of Gawd"?
his teaching enabled it..
he "promoted" it..
at the very least, he betrayed the God he claimed to serve.. and the "household" he claimed to lead.
"abstain from all APPEARANCE of evil.."
well.. whadda we care what the rest of the supposed Christian world believes..
what about if your "liberty" causes your brother to stumble..
I guess it only applies in der "prevailing" household.. forget about ninety eight percent of the rest of the Christian world.
Somebody said on another thread about "well, whadda about the dark ages.. da verd sure wasn't a movin then.."
The closer I look at vic's teaching and influence, and how gullible people, and myself were.. I don't think we ever really pulled out of the dark ages..
The rape: I'll probably just end up reiterating what others have said - but it's hard to imagine that so many women would come forward and say something like that unless it really happened to them. I can't imagine admiting to anyone that some gross wrinkly old man did such horrible things to me unless it was true! Ugh! (we need a vomit emoticon) XP
The utter meaness: There is no way this is impossible. My father talks of Mr. Weirwell very highly and even he said that he was chewed out (what I believe to be) for no reason whatsoever. My father actually bares him no ill will for even that - he acts like he deserved his ill treatment. I'm sure the man had his moments of kindness (no one is perfectly evil) ;) but some of the things my parents say really back up the claims I've seen here as far as that goes.
Under New York Law, there are two degrees of Coercion (Penal Law 135.60 and 135.65), but the felony crime is defined in the same language as the misdemeanor when the defendant "compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he has a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will cause physical injury to a person or cause damage to property."
The Court of Appeals has twice addressed the uniqueness of the New York Coercion statutes: that the felony of Coercion 1st Degree is identical to the misdemeanor of Coercion 2nd Degree, when the coercion is accomplished by instilling a fear that a person will be physically injured or that property will be damaged. In People v Eboli, 34 NY2d 281, 357 NYS2d 435 (1974), the Court ruled that the fact that identical elements were required did not violate a defendant’s constitutional guarantees of due process or equal protection.
The Court reviewed the McKinney’s Practice Commentaries and concluded that, "despite the misdemeanor section, coercion by either of these means, was intended to be prosecuted as a felony." 34 NY2d at 285-286. The Court’s analysis continued:
it is likely that despite the verbal duplication in the lower degree, the drafters and the Legislature intended that the general rule be that coercion in the first degree, the felony, be charged whenever the method of coercion was to instill a fear of injury to a person or damage to property. Making the misdemeanor offense "all-inclusive" is apparently a "safety-valve" feature included in the event an unusual factual situation should develop where the method of coercion is literally by threat of personal or property injury, but for some reason it lacks the heinous quality the Legislature associated with such threats. 34 NY2d at 287.
That the felony is the presumptive charge when a defendant instills fear of physical injury or property damage is made even more emphatic by the Eboli Court:
It seems clear that despite the identity of language, there is a guideline differentiating felony and misdemeanor coercion – in general, the misdemeanor is to be charged where the method of coercion is covered by subdivisions three to nine, and the felony is to be charged if the "additional element" of a threat of personal or property injury is involved. . . . the higher degree would be charged in other than exceptional cases. 34 NY2d at 288 (emphasis supplied).
The Court of Appeals next addressed the very issue presented here: when should the lesser included charge of Coercion 2nd Degree be given to the trial jury? In People v Discala, 45 NY2d 38, 407 NYS2d 660 (1978), the Court again emphasized that the usual case involving a threat to cause physical injury to induce a person to do an act the person has right to abstain from, should be charged at the felony level, saying:
In Eboli, this court construed the misdemeanor as a "’safety-valve’ feature" and suggested that it was reserved for an "unusual factual situation." [citation omitted] The rationale for this approach is that it would indeed be an exceptional case where the method of coercion is by threat of personal or property injury while at the same time the "heinous quality" is lacking. While a vivid imagination may certainly conjure up a situation where threatening physical injury is not truly fearsome, this would be a rare event indeed. 45 NY2d at 42.
. . . . it will be a rare and unusual event for the prosecution to have established coercion by threat of personal physical injury without showing the heinousness ordinarily associated with this manner of commission of the crime. 45 NY2d at 43.
In Discala, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial judge did not err in denying the requested jury charge of Coercion 2nd Degree. Eventhough the threat in that case was made over the telephone, since it was a "proposal to kill or have the victim killed," the Court of Appeals found that "the malevolent nature of the threat is at once obvious," and the requested charge down to a misdemeanor "was manifestly unwarranted and properly denied." Id.
Furthermore, the Court said, "fundamentally, the jury should not be permitted to choose between the crime charged and some lesser crime where the evidence essential to support a verdict of guilt of the lesser necessarily proves guilt of the greater crime, as well [citations omitted]. Id.
In the instant case, the evidence at trial clearly supports the defendant’s conviction for the greater crime of Coercion 1st Degree. Thus, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s request that the jury be permitted to choose the lesser crime. "A lesser included offense need be charged only when there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support guilt on the lesser count and acquittal on the greater [emphasis supplied and citations omitted]. People v Zuziela, 98 AD2d 161, 471 NYS2d 351 (3rd Dept 1983). Refusal to submit the lesser charge of Coercion 2nd was upheld where the threat of personal injury involved the display of a handgun, the Court noting that the alleged threat was "particularly heinous, involving being shot by a gun, and, thus, his action constituted coercion in the first degree." 471 NYS2d at 352.
The Third Department ruled in People v Pereau, 99 AD2d 591, 471 NYS2d 416 (3rd Dept 1984), that the trial court acted properly in refusing to charge the lesser included offense of Coercion 2nd Degree. "To be entitled to the charge of the lesser crime under the second prong of the test, it was incumbent upon defendant to show a reasonable basis in the evidence for finding him not guilty of the felony coercion and guilty of the misdemeanor of coercion. . . . . such a lesser charge should be reserved for the unusual factual situation where the method of coercion is by threat of personal physical injury which for some reason lacks a heinous quality." 471 NYS2d at 418. The threats in Pereau were made by brandishing a knife and holding it against the victim’s body.
In neither Zuziela nor Pereau did the defendant express in words that he would kill or injure the victim. But in both cases, the threat to do so was amply communicated by his displaying a weapon. The same applies to the instant case.
As in People v Wager, 228 AD2nd 741, 742, 644 NYS2d 74, 75 (3rd Dept 1996), "the events giving rise to the offense of which he now stands convicted evidence a wanton disregard for the safety and well-being of his victim, and a willingness to impose his will on others by force."
Is it possible...that God, knowing how evil man seems to gravitate toward, has a different criteria for choosing who He works through than politically correct, or man's morality, or whatever other flawed, 'set up for failure' standards mankind uses?
[it would be possible if we didn't look at ALL the verses on the subject.
God doesn't endorse immorality.
God doesn't endorse the immoral.
I Corinthians 6:8-10
"8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Galatians 5:19-21
"19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
Whatever that means, it sounds serious-and sounds like God disapproves of those who
engage in immoral acts repeatedly- quite a lot.
Ephesians 5:5-6.
" 5For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience."
I'm not even to let someone deceive me about that online.
God's wrath-whatever THAT is- hits the "children of disobedience" SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF SINFUL CONDUCT.
God doesn't care?
He does if you actually read the ENTIRE BIBLE.
Hophi and Phineas in the Old Testament were in the offices of priests.
They engaged in sinful conduct, and encouraged others to engage in sinful conduct.
(Sounds familiar.)
They died SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of their sinful behaviour.
God didn't care that they were sinful flesh. They represented Him- and they sinned and caused others
to sin. God DID NOT APPROVE.
God does not endorse the immoral, nor immoral acts.
And pretending these verses represent some sort of modern
"political correctness" and handwaving them away doesn't change that.]
Do you think Noah wasn't just as evil in the imagination of his heart as anyone else living at the time? It says he found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Why not VP?
[Well, you're making an arbitrary distinction between 2 things:
the sinful nature and sinful imaginations,
and the sinful ACTS and sinful LIFESTYLES.
Noah, I'm confident, was tempted to sin.
Noah didn't go around sinning, nor encouraging others to sin.
What was "in the imagination of his heart" was his own business- he didn't make it an ACTION.
vpw, on the other hand,
put a considerable effort into sinning.
He sinned.
He made plans to sin, and executed them.
He sought out pornographic theaters and possibly orgies.
He put forth that God accepted ORGIES- that God "had a different standard" than disapproving of
fornication. (Just like we're hearing now, defending vpw.)
He set up an elaborate framework to sin- preparing to commit adultery (he was married),
rape, and molestation,
complete with an "exit system" to make sure he covered his tracks and ruined the reputation
of any victim who prepared to expose his evil deeds.
He used the office of a representative of God to rape and encourage others to rape.
(Like Hophi and Phineas.)
He also treated God's money like his personal piggybank.
He made a LIFESTYLE of this, and did it until he was too ill to exercise his evil intentions.
He never repented his evil deeds- he never attempted to make amends for his evil actions.
The only things he ever repented of was "not being better" (which was within his power)
and not "having wrought evil."]
Gideon was a poor man in Manassah. God gave him power. He had 70 kids. Must've liked his tang, too.
[This has nothing to do with this discussion.]
Saul was so afraid of success he hid among the stuff. God gave him power. He abused people.
[And within 24 hours of Saul disobeying, God sent his prophet to confront him and fire him.
And he disobeyed by doing what God told him not to do.
What is this "abused people" thing- is it that he had a royal staff?
That's not "abusing people."]
David was a man after God's own heart. God gave him power. If VP raped anybody then David raped Bathsheba.
I'd go that far-and he paid a heavy price for it.
And after he sinned, he REPENTED, and turned his life around.
And still paid.
He didn't LIVE in sin.]
Solomon pleased God. God gave him wisdom, honour, and riches. He, too, abused people.
[solomon 'abused people'? Please refresh my memory-what are you speaking of?]
This idea that VP couldn't possibly have been a MOG is based on politically correct and other man made standards. Isaiah 55:8 says ...my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways (v.9) as the heavens are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
[This idea that God disregards sin and considers it "politically correct" and a "man-made standard"
is itself POLITICALLY CORRECT and a MAN-MADE STANDARD.
The word "SIN" in Greek, in many places (I can supply some if you lack a Concordance)
is the Greek word "anomias".
It's an interesting word, and the roots of it are the prefix "a", or "not",
and "nom", or "name".
Not imputing something a sin when it is one, not NAMING a sin, is itself SINFUL.
2 Thessalonians 2:3
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
This concept, that everything is permitted, and nothing is bad, wrong, evil, sinful,
THAT is POLITICALLY CORRECT and a MAN-MADE STANDARD.
II Thessalonians 2:3-4
3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
That man of sins who is to come shall oppose the entire CONCEPT of God,
and shall put HIMSELF forth as the standard, setting for that HE, a man, is GOD.
That he puts HIMSELF as the standard, incidentally, began long before him,
and people OTHER than vpw have done it through history.
And the concept that everything is permitted, and nothing is wrong or sinful,
that's pretty modern and idolatrous.
And it's not unconnected to the rise in teenage suicides in modern society, as Emile Durkheim
could tell you, and he was born a Jew and lived as a secular Jew,
so he certainly didn't connect them because the New Testament did...]
In the previous verse (v. 7) the higher thoughts and ways are...to have mercy and abundantly pardon. Man's thoughts and ways are often to NOT show mercy and not even marginally pardon. That's part of the evil.
This thread proves to me something I've felt all along: that even though the "VP defenders" are greatly outnumbered by the condemners, our words are stronger than yours. They have more impact.
[This thread proves to me something I've suspected in other threads- that even though sin is roundly condemned in
Scripture, that Christians are told to not-sin, that it's a clear subject in the Epistles "which are addressed to them",
those seeking to adore and revere the myth of victor paul wierwille as some sort of great believer,
and not a vain, sinful man who engaged in fraud and used his office as a Christian leader to
SYSTEMATIZE SIN, who SYSTEMATIZED ERROR,
will engage in any sort of deception or gambit to do so,
including vpw's own tactic of distorting Scripture to say God doesn't disapprove of sin,
or lessen its meaning, or excuse lifestyles of sinning that God condemned.
I thank my God that most people are free of the deceptions which would seek to engage in such
dishonesty, even to the point of perverting Scripture to excuse evil.
Those people ARE greatly outnumbered-at least here.
One deception, however, easily leads to another-
like that perverting Scripture and wrenching the meanings is fine,
and reflects their actual meaning,
and have more impact than the straightforward, uncomplicated messages therein-
like God saying "don't sin."
Rather than saying "I love truth and must change my mind to match God's Word, for God's Word is Truth,"
they can say "my words have more impact! I am a lone sentinel for God!"
It is not my burden to prove it false. I opined that the statement "innocents died at VP's hands" was a false accusation. That is my opinion. If Rascal or you or anyone else wants to prove the statement to be true, thereby proving my opinion to be false, go right ahead and try to.
I am reasonably sure Rascal meant EXACTLY as I took it, that VPW was directly responsible for the deaths of people...
I'm reasonably certain you knew full well that rascal did NOT mean
"and vpw knifed him and he died" or "and vpw shot him, killing him instantly."
Pretending that she did- which you may or may not have meant- would be grossly dishonest.
vpw directly being responsible for the deaths of innocents, that depends.
It depends on how you define "innocents", and how you define "at vpw's hands."
Most people would define "innocents" as "people not sentenced to death or otherwise eligible for such
a sentence based on their actions", since we know that all of us have a sinful nature, and we're
talking about actual people here. "Innocents" defined as "those who have not warranted execution
nor brought death on themselves", and by that I mean, an innocent who picks up a machinegun and
points it at someone, then is killed, is no longer considered an innocent- he or she was aware of the possibility
of death as the result of participating, and made the decision to do so.
As for vpw, he didn't wield the knife, nor pull the trigger.
People died. Innocent people.
Who died?
There were 2 categories of death I'm aware of:
-those who were aborted because vpw insisted all pregnancies in the corps were to be aborted,
-those who committed suicide because vpw raped them or kicked them from the corps
==============
As to the first, whether or not one considers vpw complicit or responsible for their deaths depends
on two things:
A) do abortions count as deaths?
B) to what degree was vpw responsible for the abortions?
As to the first, I leave that to the individual consciences of the readers.
I'm aware that the only Christians who do NOT consider abortions to be "taking a life" are those who
learned their definitions from vpw, or from those he taught.
If one is certain that anything vpw said is automatically true, then they won't consider abortions to be
anything more than a medical procedure.
If one can consider the possibility that vpw had a self-serving reason for saying something that was
not true (like God being ok with orgies), then it is up to them to look things over.
In twi, there were times-and on this thread, even- where it was said that God APPROVED of
abortions, at least SOME of them if not all of them.
That first question can't be resolved here-either one believes abortions are deaths, or one does not.
Perhaps a separate thread should discuss that.
The second question, however, IS resolvable.
vpw never put a policy in writing for the corps saying that
"any pregnancies in the corps will either result in leaving the corps or abortions to remain in the corps,
and those who elect not to have an abortion will be pressured to have one done."
That meant the participants did not enter the program with the understanding that they might need
to have an abortion. Heck, if there was a policy saying "sex is not recommended while in the
way corps and here's why", they'd have had an understanding this was going to be discouraged.
Of course, vpw never discouraged sex among corps- which would have forestalled this potential
situation from happening, since that would have resulted in corps less ready to be sex partners,
which was not something vpw wanted done.
The policies were entirely vpw's idea, and vpw's implementation. vpw himself told some women
they HAD to have abortions (placing pressure on them, since the alternative was to
"break a vow unto the Lord" or "displease God" or the like.) vpw set in place the policies that
specified exactly that be done with ALL women becoming pregnant in the corps.
vpw decided that the corps were to be free to have sex whenever they wanted (so long as they
weren't supposed to be somewhere else at that moment), and that any pregnancies were to result
in abortions, not staying, and not leaving, and women were to be leaned on until they agreed.
Did he wield the knife? No.
Was he responsible for the abortions?
Yes.
We'll never know how many were genetically HIS offspring.
But whether or not, HE was responsible for the policies leaning on the women, which were the
reasons the abortions were performed.
Anywhere except in the minds of vpw defenders,
the person who enacts a policy, and enforces a policy, is held responsible for the RESULTS of that policy.
That's why-whenever there's investigations of wrongdoing, the people IN CHARGE of the ones that
did something are investigated.
The Iraqi people didn't say "Oh, Saddam Hussein didn't fling gas grenades at people, so he's not
responsible for their deaths." They said "Saddam Hussein ordered his troops to fire poison gas
at people, so he is responsible for their deaths."
And when King Saul was told to kill Amalek, and Saul ordered the army to take their king alive,
God held SAUL responsible, not the army.
So, God Almighty understands that the person giving the orders is responsible for actions taken
as a result OF his orders.
vpw defenders, of course, will disregard what is common-sense among everyone else, including
all other Christians, and disregard that the Bible calls it the same way.
As for anyone willing to honestly think it over, vpw determined that abortions would be
performed in the corps. When abortions were performed, he was responsible.
===========
As for the others, that's a bit more direct, as some of us see it.
vpw wanted some people out of his way. (Literally.)
When women on-staff or in the corps were raped by him, in some cases, they were ready to
expose his felony. vpw moved swiftly- he kicked them out, and destroyed their reputations.
Efficient, if ungodly, evil and inhuman.
In a few cases, those women then made the conscious decision to commit suicide.
Was vpw responsible for their death?
He traumatized her once by raping her.
He traumatized her a second time by kicking her from the corps/staff.
He traumatized her a third time by destroying what was left of her ego when he kicked her
out.
He removed the safety net most people have- by making sure they didn't have friends/family
outside of twi, then telling all the twi'ers to shun her, so she had no one to turn to.
Small wonder some of them committed suicide (although many did not.)
Was vpw DIRECTLY responsible for that death?
He didn't pull the trigger, but anyone except a vpw defender would hold him DIRECTLY responsible.
In a few other cases,
vpw operated a physically-dangerous program,
and then kicked out SOME people who became injured as a result.
(In some cases, doing the shunning bit like in the last case.)
Some of them committed suicide. (Some did not, and we're not talking many people to begin with.)
was vpw DIRECTLY responsible for that death?
He didn't pull the trigger, but anyone except vpw defenders would say he was DIRECTLY responsible.
He enacted policies, and the immediate results ended in the death of a participant.
(Naturally, corps were not told before signing up that they would engage in potentially fatal
activities.)
==========
Did innocents die at vpw's hands?
Anyone other than a vpw defender would say "yes."
vpw defenders would say "No", but then, ANY wrong-doing by vpw is dismissed, belittled, or
distracted-from when a vpw defender is at work, and truth is irrelevant.
Am I changing the subject of the thread if I ask if anyone has seen this all repeated in the secular world since they left TWI?
I've worked for at least two companies where men in charge were charming and fatherly to the outside world, screamers and yellers to those close to them, and thought it their privilege to sleep with any number of women they chose to outside of their marriage. And their conduct fostered an environment where other men then thought that was acceptable behavior. That led to an entire environment where women were sexually harassed, forced to sleep with executives to keep their jobs, and on and on it went.
These founders, presidents have been men who were also worshipped for their success and skill in their respective business fields.
It's been downright dejavu'ish and very creepy. We, of course, would be expecting more from VP as leader of a Christian organization but to God, its all the same sinful behavior.
He bailed out the corps participants who got pregnant. I think he did a good thing.
You think he did a good thing before hearing what he did, and then creatively reinterpret
whatever he did so it sounds like a good thing.
If he'd taken out a pistol and fired at the crowd at an ROA, it would not surprise me to hear
you defend that action.
Do you think it would have been better had he dismissed the women from the Corps altogether?
Then he'd be blamed for that too!
That's a False Dilemma, and he's to be blamed for MAKING the ORIGINAL False Dilemma.
The False Dilemma was between 2 possibilities:
A) Women must have abortions.
B) Women must be dismissed from the corps.
Here's how he set it up, then stacked the deck to make sure all women picked the first "option"....
First of all,
before going into the corps, they were not warned "if you get pregnant, you will need to leave
the corps." They certainly were never told "if you leave the corps, you will have pressure placed
on you to stay, and your reputation will be smeared back home before you get back.:
Second of all,
before going into the corps- which would have been repeated early on-
the participants were not warned "premarital sex is wrong, AND it will result in pregnancies,
which will result in participants leaving the corps."
(He had his own reasons for encouraging the participants to have sex.)
Third of all,
when a pregnancy DID result,
the parents had a decision to make.
Christians outside twi consider children a "blessing." (Ask one sometime.)
They wouldn't choose to abort one unless the mother's life is in danger.
And yes, I've known adopted kids who were well-cared-for and love their families.
vpw COULD have said
"Well, you can't stay in the program through your pregnancy. (Why?)
We can discuss whether or not you wish to complete the program sometime in the future,
or whether you'll have a partial refund of your tuition (yeah, right),
which you'll need now that you're expecting a child."
vpw made the possibility of leaving the corps a DARK BLIGHT.
CONSIDERING leaving became cause for tirades about abandoning God and other nonsense
about a God who can accomplish His Will without ANY of our programs,
and people who DID leave had their reputations smeared,
which made them an example to others who might consider leaving.
Once you agreed to enter the corps, you were essentially an indentured servant,
with your choices between "obey what you're told no matter what"
and "don't obey and we'll ruin your life".
There were a LOT of things that could have been done, which were NOT done.
vpw was the one who got to decide about all that.
vpw set up the situations that made women pregnant-by HIMSELF in some cases.
vpw ensured that abortions were seen as the only possibility once a woman became
pregnant.
vpw ensured that some people saw it that way who were never there when an
abortion "was necessary."
(Considering some people still see it that way, he succeeded beyond his wildest aspirations there.)
Hey it's all his fault. He shouldn't have been born.
vpw had no choice about being born.
Once he was born, he grew older and made decisions that deprived others from being born.
THAT's his fault.
Am I changing the subject of the thread if I ask if anyone has seen this all repeated in the secular world since they left TWI?
I've worked for at least two companies where men in charge were charming and fatherly to the outside world, screamers and yellers to those close to them, and thought it their privilege to sleep with any number of women they chose to outside of their marriage. And their conduct fostered an environment where other men then thought that was acceptable behavior. That led to an entire environment where women were sexually harassed, forced to sleep with executives to keep their jobs, and on and on it went.
These founders, presidents have been men who were also worshipped for their success and skill in their respective business fields.
It's been downright dejavu'ish and very creepy. We, of course, would be expecting more from VP as leader of a Christian organization but to God, its all the same sinful behavior.
absolute power corrupts absolutely??
Outside of Christian organizations, it's possible to find people who think this is acceptable.
However, it's illegal, and they can be taken to court, both the individuals and the corporations.
This is especially true in the military (Tailhook scandal, anyone?).
Am I changing the subject of the thread if I ask if anyone has seen this all repeated in the secular world since they left TWI?
I've worked for at least two companies where men in charge were charming and fatherly to the outside world, screamers and yellers to those close to them, and thought it their privilege to sleep with any number of women they chose to outside of their marriage. And their conduct fostered an environment where other men then thought that was acceptable behavior. That led to an entire environment where women were sexually harassed, forced to sleep with executives to keep their jobs, and on and on it went.
These founders, presidents have been men who were also worshipped for their success and skill in their respective business fields.
It's been downright dejavu'ish and very creepy. We, of course, would be expecting more from VP as leader of a Christian organization but to God, its all the same sinful behavior.
absolute power corrupts absolutely??
That is just horrible. :o But I have heard of this - the scum always manages to get to the top. I find that a lot of things happened in the secular world that happened in twi. People are people and you get good and bad ones. But what I disliked most about twi was their bad attributes were always backed up by twisting the Bible to fit their needs and excuse their behaivors.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
49
68
30
33
Popular Days
Oct 19
97
Oct 18
73
Oct 17
50
Oct 22
46
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 49 posts
oldiesman 68 posts
WordWolf 30 posts
doojable 33 posts
Popular Days
Oct 19 2007
97 posts
Oct 18 2007
73 posts
Oct 17 2007
50 posts
Oct 22 2007
46 posts
TrustAndObey
VP a real MOG???
Yeah.. sure.. Only if you also want to add Hitler to the list.. Since he also felt like he was doing God's work..
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
""My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
Hail Hitler.. Hail VP...
What sickos...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
This thread is like so many others; it's like those movies and cop shows where they go to the shooting range, clip a target on the wire, zoom it back as far as they want, then shoot at it, zoom it back to them and you see bullet holes in the head and heart areas.
I got to admit this one used more imagination than the average, but the first post just neatly listed the targets single file and didn't even have to zoom it anywhere, just fire away. Never gets old, does it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Doojable,
Before I go accusing the Way of new doctrine, i.e, now teaching that born again believers can turn into the devil's children, I would have to find out from the source. I suspect that if these things were said by LCM, that Craig was perhaps performing one of his rants. But I really don't know.
If you can prove that TWI now teaches that, go ahead. But my previous statement that those ex-way who are calling Goey a child of the devil "must not respect VPW's teachings too much any more" to refer to him that way, makes perfect sense to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
The practice was started right after POP.
I bet you can find people who said they were supposed to avoid a certain leader because he was seed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Goey,
It is not my burden to prove it false. I opined that the statement "innocents died at VP's hands" was a false accusation. That is my opinion. If Rascal or you or anyone else wants to prove the statement to be true, thereby proving my opinion to be false, go right ahead and try to.
BTW, nice try in changing the meaning of Rascal's statement "innocents died at VP's hands" to "VPW had a role in it". :) :lol:
I am reasonably sure Rascal meant EXACTLY as I took it, that VPW was directly responsible for the deaths of people...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
What about the who knows how many who were slaughtered before they were born.. under vic's auspices..
yeah.. vic used abs to "fix" the little "problem"
I don't think one could get closer to his filthy hands being pretty much responsible..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Dot Matrix,
For someone who doesn't want to dig, you sure did here.
But please spare me the condescending guilt trip routine. I was rendering an opinion to something Excathedra said. We are allowed to do that here. I didn't doubt her testimony, or call her a liar. If you don't see the difference, that's not my problem.
And BTW, Excathedra is a big girl and doesn't need you to be her nursemaid and mother hen. She's a big girl and can speak for and defend herself. If she was offended and hurt by my post, she can call me on it herself, or PM me privately anytime.
WOW! here you have maligned a fellow believer in Christ, one who has done you no harm. Does your nastiness and cattiness have no bounds? Are you mad at me so that gives you license to try to hurt someone else in the process? What is wrong with you?
You have based your statement on vicious rumors, backbiting and innuendo. No proof at all, yet you state this as happening, manner of factly. You are pitiful and petty.
You tried to hurt people by that statement, but I think all you've done is damage your own credibility. Imagine, one of the premier anti-Wierwille attack-dog-storytellers engaging in vicious rumor and innuendo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Is it possible.. he was the "mogster".. a "nice guy".. well.
He paid for abortions..
no, he didn't pay.. he took MY abs, and used it to pay for abortions.
Without my permission.
a "man of Gawd"?
his teaching enabled it..
he "promoted" it..
at the very least, he betrayed the God he claimed to serve.. and the "household" he claimed to lead.
"abstain from all APPEARANCE of evil.."
well.. whadda we care what the rest of the supposed Christian world believes..
what about if your "liberty" causes your brother to stumble..
I guess it only applies in der "prevailing" household.. forget about ninety eight percent of the rest of the Christian world.
Somebody said on another thread about "well, whadda about the dark ages.. da verd sure wasn't a movin then.."
The closer I look at vic's teaching and influence, and how gullible people, and myself were.. I don't think we ever really pulled out of the dark ages..
Just turned into savages living in quaint houses.
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think its a weak argument.
Its like saying Horace Smith and Daniel B. Wesson have blood on their hands for gun deaths.
Its like saying Lee Iacocca has blood on his hands for automobile deaths. etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nero
I'm sure it's possible... but unlikely.
The rape: I'll probably just end up reiterating what others have said - but it's hard to imagine that so many women would come forward and say something like that unless it really happened to them. I can't imagine admiting to anyone that some gross wrinkly old man did such horrible things to me unless it was true! Ugh! (we need a vomit emoticon) XP
The utter meaness: There is no way this is impossible. My father talks of Mr. Weirwell very highly and even he said that he was chewed out (what I believe to be) for no reason whatsoever. My father actually bares him no ill will for even that - he acts like he deserved his ill treatment. I'm sure the man had his moments of kindness (no one is perfectly evil) ;) but some of the things my parents say really back up the claims I've seen here as far as that goes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Hey.. at least it's an ARGUMENT.
No, I wouldn't hold Mr. Smith accountable for all that blood..
now, if he PURCHASED and DONATED the tommy gun for Dillinger, or Capone, then we're talking about some responsibility.
vic taught that abortion was not murder, and as such, kinda ok to do..
then he PAYS for them..
in my opinion, he was DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno.. maybe he had more than one personality..
(1). On one hand, he wanted the "free love" and sexuality of the sixties, for his vewy vewy own..
freedom to do as he wished..
(2). On the other, he wanted a pristine, clean organization, above reproach.. no scandals to taint
his quaint world..
and unwed pregnancy, and drug use, and other stuff, resulting from (1) made (2) soooooo "untidy"..
what to do? Well.. the two personalities have to come up with SOME kind of "agreement"..
I dunno. Makes sense to me..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
He bailed out the corps participants who got pregnant. I think he did a good thing.
Do you think it would have been better had he dismissed the women from the Corps altogether?
Then he'd be blamed for that too!
Hey it's all his fault. He shouldn't have been born.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Perhaps.
maybe you should ask them..
what I really wonder though..
not being "careful.."
I wonder how many times the mogster wasn't "careful"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
No he should have been put in prison oldiesman.
He violated the rights of another by coercion.
The Law on Coercion
in New York
Under New York Law, there are two degrees of Coercion (Penal Law 135.60 and 135.65), but the felony crime is defined in the same language as the misdemeanor when the defendant "compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he has a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will cause physical injury to a person or cause damage to property."
The Court of Appeals has twice addressed the uniqueness of the New York Coercion statutes: that the felony of Coercion 1st Degree is identical to the misdemeanor of Coercion 2nd Degree, when the coercion is accomplished by instilling a fear that a person will be physically injured or that property will be damaged. In People v Eboli, 34 NY2d 281, 357 NYS2d 435 (1974), the Court ruled that the fact that identical elements were required did not violate a defendant’s constitutional guarantees of due process or equal protection.
The Court reviewed the McKinney’s Practice Commentaries and concluded that, "despite the misdemeanor section, coercion by either of these means, was intended to be prosecuted as a felony." 34 NY2d at 285-286. The Court’s analysis continued:
it is likely that despite the verbal duplication in the lower degree, the drafters and the Legislature intended that the general rule be that coercion in the first degree, the felony, be charged whenever the method of coercion was to instill a fear of injury to a person or damage to property. Making the misdemeanor offense "all-inclusive" is apparently a "safety-valve" feature included in the event an unusual factual situation should develop where the method of coercion is literally by threat of personal or property injury, but for some reason it lacks the heinous quality the Legislature associated with such threats. 34 NY2d at 287.
That the felony is the presumptive charge when a defendant instills fear of physical injury or property damage is made even more emphatic by the Eboli Court:
It seems clear that despite the identity of language, there is a guideline differentiating felony and misdemeanor coercion – in general, the misdemeanor is to be charged where the method of coercion is covered by subdivisions three to nine, and the felony is to be charged if the "additional element" of a threat of personal or property injury is involved. . . . the higher degree would be charged in other than exceptional cases. 34 NY2d at 288 (emphasis supplied).
The Court of Appeals next addressed the very issue presented here: when should the lesser included charge of Coercion 2nd Degree be given to the trial jury? In People v Discala, 45 NY2d 38, 407 NYS2d 660 (1978), the Court again emphasized that the usual case involving a threat to cause physical injury to induce a person to do an act the person has right to abstain from, should be charged at the felony level, saying:
In Eboli, this court construed the misdemeanor as a "’safety-valve’ feature" and suggested that it was reserved for an "unusual factual situation." [citation omitted] The rationale for this approach is that it would indeed be an exceptional case where the method of coercion is by threat of personal or property injury while at the same time the "heinous quality" is lacking. While a vivid imagination may certainly conjure up a situation where threatening physical injury is not truly fearsome, this would be a rare event indeed. 45 NY2d at 42.
. . . . it will be a rare and unusual event for the prosecution to have established coercion by threat of personal physical injury without showing the heinousness ordinarily associated with this manner of commission of the crime. 45 NY2d at 43.
In Discala, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial judge did not err in denying the requested jury charge of Coercion 2nd Degree. Eventhough the threat in that case was made over the telephone, since it was a "proposal to kill or have the victim killed," the Court of Appeals found that "the malevolent nature of the threat is at once obvious," and the requested charge down to a misdemeanor "was manifestly unwarranted and properly denied." Id.
Furthermore, the Court said, "fundamentally, the jury should not be permitted to choose between the crime charged and some lesser crime where the evidence essential to support a verdict of guilt of the lesser necessarily proves guilt of the greater crime, as well [citations omitted]. Id.
In the instant case, the evidence at trial clearly supports the defendant’s conviction for the greater crime of Coercion 1st Degree. Thus, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s request that the jury be permitted to choose the lesser crime. "A lesser included offense need be charged only when there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support guilt on the lesser count and acquittal on the greater [emphasis supplied and citations omitted]. People v Zuziela, 98 AD2d 161, 471 NYS2d 351 (3rd Dept 1983). Refusal to submit the lesser charge of Coercion 2nd was upheld where the threat of personal injury involved the display of a handgun, the Court noting that the alleged threat was "particularly heinous, involving being shot by a gun, and, thus, his action constituted coercion in the first degree." 471 NYS2d at 352.
The Third Department ruled in People v Pereau, 99 AD2d 591, 471 NYS2d 416 (3rd Dept 1984), that the trial court acted properly in refusing to charge the lesser included offense of Coercion 2nd Degree. "To be entitled to the charge of the lesser crime under the second prong of the test, it was incumbent upon defendant to show a reasonable basis in the evidence for finding him not guilty of the felony coercion and guilty of the misdemeanor of coercion. . . . . such a lesser charge should be reserved for the unusual factual situation where the method of coercion is by threat of personal physical injury which for some reason lacks a heinous quality." 471 NYS2d at 418. The threats in Pereau were made by brandishing a knife and holding it against the victim’s body.
In neither Zuziela nor Pereau did the defendant express in words that he would kill or injure the victim. But in both cases, the threat to do so was amply communicated by his displaying a weapon. The same applies to the instant case.
As in People v Wager, 228 AD2nd 741, 742, 644 NYS2d 74, 75 (3rd Dept 1996), "the events giving rise to the offense of which he now stands convicted evidence a wanton disregard for the safety and well-being of his victim, and a willingness to impose his will on others by force."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Should have been charged with rape also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_about_rape
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nero
That's the best idea I've heard yet!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[it would be possible if we didn't look at ALL the verses on the subject.
God doesn't endorse immorality.
God doesn't endorse the immoral.
I Corinthians 6:8-10
"8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Galatians 5:19-21
"19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
Whatever that means, it sounds serious-and sounds like God disapproves of those who
engage in immoral acts repeatedly- quite a lot.
Ephesians 5:5-6.
" 5For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience."
I'm not even to let someone deceive me about that online.
God's wrath-whatever THAT is- hits the "children of disobedience" SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF SINFUL CONDUCT.
God doesn't care?
He does if you actually read the ENTIRE BIBLE.
Hophi and Phineas in the Old Testament were in the offices of priests.
They engaged in sinful conduct, and encouraged others to engage in sinful conduct.
(Sounds familiar.)
They died SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of their sinful behaviour.
God didn't care that they were sinful flesh. They represented Him- and they sinned and caused others
to sin. God DID NOT APPROVE.
God does not endorse the immoral, nor immoral acts.
And pretending these verses represent some sort of modern
"political correctness" and handwaving them away doesn't change that.]
[Well, you're making an arbitrary distinction between 2 things:
the sinful nature and sinful imaginations,
and the sinful ACTS and sinful LIFESTYLES.
Noah, I'm confident, was tempted to sin.
Noah didn't go around sinning, nor encouraging others to sin.
What was "in the imagination of his heart" was his own business- he didn't make it an ACTION.
vpw, on the other hand,
put a considerable effort into sinning.
He sinned.
He made plans to sin, and executed them.
He sought out pornographic theaters and possibly orgies.
He put forth that God accepted ORGIES- that God "had a different standard" than disapproving of
fornication. (Just like we're hearing now, defending vpw.)
He set up an elaborate framework to sin- preparing to commit adultery (he was married),
rape, and molestation,
complete with an "exit system" to make sure he covered his tracks and ruined the reputation
of any victim who prepared to expose his evil deeds.
He used the office of a representative of God to rape and encourage others to rape.
(Like Hophi and Phineas.)
He also treated God's money like his personal piggybank.
He made a LIFESTYLE of this, and did it until he was too ill to exercise his evil intentions.
He never repented his evil deeds- he never attempted to make amends for his evil actions.
The only things he ever repented of was "not being better" (which was within his power)
and not "having wrought evil."]
[This has nothing to do with this discussion.][And within 24 hours of Saul disobeying, God sent his prophet to confront him and fire him.
And he disobeyed by doing what God told him not to do.
What is this "abused people" thing- is it that he had a royal staff?
That's not "abusing people."]
I'd go that far-and he paid a heavy price for it.And after he sinned, he REPENTED, and turned his life around.
And still paid.
He didn't LIVE in sin.]
[solomon 'abused people'? Please refresh my memory-what are you speaking of?]
[This idea that God disregards sin and considers it "politically correct" and a "man-made standard"is itself POLITICALLY CORRECT and a MAN-MADE STANDARD.
The word "SIN" in Greek, in many places (I can supply some if you lack a Concordance)
is the Greek word "anomias".
It's an interesting word, and the roots of it are the prefix "a", or "not",
and "nom", or "name".
Not imputing something a sin when it is one, not NAMING a sin, is itself SINFUL.
2 Thessalonians 2:3
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
This concept, that everything is permitted, and nothing is bad, wrong, evil, sinful,
THAT is POLITICALLY CORRECT and a MAN-MADE STANDARD.
II Thessalonians 2:3-4
3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
That man of sins who is to come shall oppose the entire CONCEPT of God,
and shall put HIMSELF forth as the standard, setting for that HE, a man, is GOD.
That he puts HIMSELF as the standard, incidentally, began long before him,
and people OTHER than vpw have done it through history.
And the concept that everything is permitted, and nothing is wrong or sinful,
that's pretty modern and idolatrous.
And it's not unconnected to the rise in teenage suicides in modern society, as Emile Durkheim
could tell you, and he was born a Jew and lived as a secular Jew,
so he certainly didn't connect them because the New Testament did...]
[This thread proves to me something I've suspected in other threads- that even though sin is roundly condemned in
Scripture, that Christians are told to not-sin, that it's a clear subject in the Epistles "which are addressed to them",
those seeking to adore and revere the myth of victor paul wierwille as some sort of great believer,
and not a vain, sinful man who engaged in fraud and used his office as a Christian leader to
SYSTEMATIZE SIN, who SYSTEMATIZED ERROR,
will engage in any sort of deception or gambit to do so,
including vpw's own tactic of distorting Scripture to say God doesn't disapprove of sin,
or lessen its meaning, or excuse lifestyles of sinning that God condemned.
I thank my God that most people are free of the deceptions which would seek to engage in such
dishonesty, even to the point of perverting Scripture to excuse evil.
Those people ARE greatly outnumbered-at least here.
One deception, however, easily leads to another-
like that perverting Scripture and wrenching the meanings is fine,
and reflects their actual meaning,
and have more impact than the straightforward, uncomplicated messages therein-
like God saying "don't sin."
Rather than saying "I love truth and must change my mind to match God's Word, for God's Word is Truth,"
they can say "my words have more impact! I am a lone sentinel for God!"
and believe it.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
anotherlink-
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/coercion/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm reasonably certain you knew full well that rascal did NOT mean
"and vpw knifed him and he died" or "and vpw shot him, killing him instantly."
Pretending that she did- which you may or may not have meant- would be grossly dishonest.
vpw directly being responsible for the deaths of innocents, that depends.
It depends on how you define "innocents", and how you define "at vpw's hands."
Most people would define "innocents" as "people not sentenced to death or otherwise eligible for such
a sentence based on their actions", since we know that all of us have a sinful nature, and we're
talking about actual people here. "Innocents" defined as "those who have not warranted execution
nor brought death on themselves", and by that I mean, an innocent who picks up a machinegun and
points it at someone, then is killed, is no longer considered an innocent- he or she was aware of the possibility
of death as the result of participating, and made the decision to do so.
As for vpw, he didn't wield the knife, nor pull the trigger.
People died. Innocent people.
Who died?
There were 2 categories of death I'm aware of:
-those who were aborted because vpw insisted all pregnancies in the corps were to be aborted,
-those who committed suicide because vpw raped them or kicked them from the corps
==============
As to the first, whether or not one considers vpw complicit or responsible for their deaths depends
on two things:
A) do abortions count as deaths?
B) to what degree was vpw responsible for the abortions?
As to the first, I leave that to the individual consciences of the readers.
I'm aware that the only Christians who do NOT consider abortions to be "taking a life" are those who
learned their definitions from vpw, or from those he taught.
If one is certain that anything vpw said is automatically true, then they won't consider abortions to be
anything more than a medical procedure.
If one can consider the possibility that vpw had a self-serving reason for saying something that was
not true (like God being ok with orgies), then it is up to them to look things over.
In twi, there were times-and on this thread, even- where it was said that God APPROVED of
abortions, at least SOME of them if not all of them.
That first question can't be resolved here-either one believes abortions are deaths, or one does not.
Perhaps a separate thread should discuss that.
The second question, however, IS resolvable.
vpw never put a policy in writing for the corps saying that
"any pregnancies in the corps will either result in leaving the corps or abortions to remain in the corps,
and those who elect not to have an abortion will be pressured to have one done."
That meant the participants did not enter the program with the understanding that they might need
to have an abortion. Heck, if there was a policy saying "sex is not recommended while in the
way corps and here's why", they'd have had an understanding this was going to be discouraged.
Of course, vpw never discouraged sex among corps- which would have forestalled this potential
situation from happening, since that would have resulted in corps less ready to be sex partners,
which was not something vpw wanted done.
The policies were entirely vpw's idea, and vpw's implementation. vpw himself told some women
they HAD to have abortions (placing pressure on them, since the alternative was to
"break a vow unto the Lord" or "displease God" or the like.) vpw set in place the policies that
specified exactly that be done with ALL women becoming pregnant in the corps.
vpw decided that the corps were to be free to have sex whenever they wanted (so long as they
weren't supposed to be somewhere else at that moment), and that any pregnancies were to result
in abortions, not staying, and not leaving, and women were to be leaned on until they agreed.
Did he wield the knife? No.
Was he responsible for the abortions?
Yes.
We'll never know how many were genetically HIS offspring.
But whether or not, HE was responsible for the policies leaning on the women, which were the
reasons the abortions were performed.
Anywhere except in the minds of vpw defenders,
the person who enacts a policy, and enforces a policy, is held responsible for the RESULTS of that policy.
That's why-whenever there's investigations of wrongdoing, the people IN CHARGE of the ones that
did something are investigated.
The Iraqi people didn't say "Oh, Saddam Hussein didn't fling gas grenades at people, so he's not
responsible for their deaths." They said "Saddam Hussein ordered his troops to fire poison gas
at people, so he is responsible for their deaths."
And when King Saul was told to kill Amalek, and Saul ordered the army to take their king alive,
God held SAUL responsible, not the army.
So, God Almighty understands that the person giving the orders is responsible for actions taken
as a result OF his orders.
vpw defenders, of course, will disregard what is common-sense among everyone else, including
all other Christians, and disregard that the Bible calls it the same way.
As for anyone willing to honestly think it over, vpw determined that abortions would be
performed in the corps. When abortions were performed, he was responsible.
===========
As for the others, that's a bit more direct, as some of us see it.
vpw wanted some people out of his way. (Literally.)
When women on-staff or in the corps were raped by him, in some cases, they were ready to
expose his felony. vpw moved swiftly- he kicked them out, and destroyed their reputations.
Efficient, if ungodly, evil and inhuman.
In a few cases, those women then made the conscious decision to commit suicide.
Was vpw responsible for their death?
He traumatized her once by raping her.
He traumatized her a second time by kicking her from the corps/staff.
He traumatized her a third time by destroying what was left of her ego when he kicked her
out.
He removed the safety net most people have- by making sure they didn't have friends/family
outside of twi, then telling all the twi'ers to shun her, so she had no one to turn to.
Small wonder some of them committed suicide (although many did not.)
Was vpw DIRECTLY responsible for that death?
He didn't pull the trigger, but anyone except a vpw defender would hold him DIRECTLY responsible.
In a few other cases,
vpw operated a physically-dangerous program,
and then kicked out SOME people who became injured as a result.
(In some cases, doing the shunning bit like in the last case.)
Some of them committed suicide. (Some did not, and we're not talking many people to begin with.)
was vpw DIRECTLY responsible for that death?
He didn't pull the trigger, but anyone except vpw defenders would say he was DIRECTLY responsible.
He enacted policies, and the immediate results ended in the death of a participant.
(Naturally, corps were not told before signing up that they would engage in potentially fatal
activities.)
==========
Did innocents die at vpw's hands?
Anyone other than a vpw defender would say "yes."
vpw defenders would say "No", but then, ANY wrong-doing by vpw is dismissed, belittled, or
distracted-from when a vpw defender is at work, and truth is irrelevant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You THINK it's a weak argument, but it isn't.
You THINK it's like saying those other things.
Of course,
auto manufacturers HAVE been held responsible for deaths- when it has been shown that something
was unsafe about the cars they manufacture. People have a right to expect that cars should be
as safe as a car can be reasonably expected to be.
When cars are shown to have that not be true- that is when they issue RECALLS. Auto companies
know they are held responsible for unsafe vehicles they made.
ALL programs are held to be responsible for the safety of the participants.
So, if a participant is forced to hitch-hike and is killed, the program is held responsible,
as hitch-hiking is known to be unsafe.
If a participant is forced to hitch-hike and is raped, the program is held responsible,
as hitch-hiking is known to be unsafe.
If a participant is forced to mountain-climb, and takes a serious injury (or a mild injury),
the program is held responsible,
as mountain-climbing is known to be unsafe, and measures should have been in place
to forestall injury.
(Virtually all injuries in those cases could be avoided by PLANNING AHEAD.)
If a participant is forced to have an abortion (which is a ridiculous thing to say unless
one is in twi), the program would be held responsible.
For anyone not desperate to remove all responsibility for wrong-doing from vpw,
this is pretty straightforward.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
LKH
Am I changing the subject of the thread if I ask if anyone has seen this all repeated in the secular world since they left TWI?
I've worked for at least two companies where men in charge were charming and fatherly to the outside world, screamers and yellers to those close to them, and thought it their privilege to sleep with any number of women they chose to outside of their marriage. And their conduct fostered an environment where other men then thought that was acceptable behavior. That led to an entire environment where women were sexually harassed, forced to sleep with executives to keep their jobs, and on and on it went.
These founders, presidents have been men who were also worshipped for their success and skill in their respective business fields.
It's been downright dejavu'ish and very creepy. We, of course, would be expecting more from VP as leader of a Christian organization but to God, its all the same sinful behavior.
absolute power corrupts absolutely??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You think he did a good thing before hearing what he did, and then creatively reinterpret
whatever he did so it sounds like a good thing.
If he'd taken out a pistol and fired at the crowd at an ROA, it would not surprise me to hear
you defend that action.
That's a False Dilemma, and he's to be blamed for MAKING the ORIGINAL False Dilemma.The False Dilemma was between 2 possibilities:
A) Women must have abortions.
B) Women must be dismissed from the corps.
Here's how he set it up, then stacked the deck to make sure all women picked the first "option"....
First of all,
before going into the corps, they were not warned "if you get pregnant, you will need to leave
the corps." They certainly were never told "if you leave the corps, you will have pressure placed
on you to stay, and your reputation will be smeared back home before you get back.:
Second of all,
before going into the corps- which would have been repeated early on-
the participants were not warned "premarital sex is wrong, AND it will result in pregnancies,
which will result in participants leaving the corps."
(He had his own reasons for encouraging the participants to have sex.)
Third of all,
when a pregnancy DID result,
the parents had a decision to make.
Christians outside twi consider children a "blessing." (Ask one sometime.)
They wouldn't choose to abort one unless the mother's life is in danger.
And yes, I've known adopted kids who were well-cared-for and love their families.
vpw COULD have said
"Well, you can't stay in the program through your pregnancy. (Why?)
We can discuss whether or not you wish to complete the program sometime in the future,
or whether you'll have a partial refund of your tuition (yeah, right),
which you'll need now that you're expecting a child."
vpw made the possibility of leaving the corps a DARK BLIGHT.
CONSIDERING leaving became cause for tirades about abandoning God and other nonsense
about a God who can accomplish His Will without ANY of our programs,
and people who DID leave had their reputations smeared,
which made them an example to others who might consider leaving.
Once you agreed to enter the corps, you were essentially an indentured servant,
with your choices between "obey what you're told no matter what"
and "don't obey and we'll ruin your life".
There were a LOT of things that could have been done, which were NOT done.
vpw was the one who got to decide about all that.
vpw set up the situations that made women pregnant-by HIMSELF in some cases.
vpw ensured that abortions were seen as the only possibility once a woman became
pregnant.
vpw ensured that some people saw it that way who were never there when an
abortion "was necessary."
(Considering some people still see it that way, he succeeded beyond his wildest aspirations there.)
vpw had no choice about being born.
Once he was born, he grew older and made decisions that deprived others from being born.
THAT's his fault.
Outside of Christian organizations, it's possible to find people who think this is acceptable.
However, it's illegal, and they can be taken to court, both the individuals and the corporations.
This is especially true in the military (Tailhook scandal, anyone?).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nero
That is just horrible. :o But I have heard of this - the scum always manages to get to the top. I find that a lot of things happened in the secular world that happened in twi. People are people and you get good and bad ones. But what I disliked most about twi was their bad attributes were always backed up by twisting the Bible to fit their needs and excuse their behaivors.
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.