Warning

[waysider]

Oldies

Let's not mince words.

Wierwille was a sexual predator.

He didn't just fantasize, he acted out his obsessions and committed criminal acts in the process.

Now, you can dance around and claim that since he was never prosecuted or found guilty, that makes him innocent.

Well, you may be correct in a court of law but in light of God's word, he is found "wanting in the balance".

He was not a king.

The woman of the kingdom did not "belong" to him.

Even the concept of "all the women of the kingdom belong to the king" is erroneous, so the point would be moot even if he WAS a king.

He was a text book sexual predator who intentionally created situations that would facilitate his behavior.

He wasn't even unique in that respect.

Think long and deep, Oldies.

If he were someone other than VP Wierwille, would he be the type of man you would want as a role model?

[coolchef]

please where is the original post?

[Danny]

It is post 350 of the Is it Possible tread

Page 18 halfway down

Edited October 23, 2007 by Danny

[waysider]

QUOTE(doojable @ Oct 22 2007, 08:26 AM) *

Show me where Solomon drugged and raped women. Show me where he taught that he'd heal them with his 'manhood.'

The issue isn't vp's amount of sexual desire, nor is it the time period that he was born, The issue is HOW he chose to use people - young girls at that - to fulfill his sexual desires. Another issue is manipulation.

The very fact that you're so impressed with his amount of sexual desire says more about you than it does about anyone else. The amount isn't evil. The desire isn't evil. Even a GREAT amount isn't evil. Manipulation, drugging, lying and rape are evil.

------------------------------------------------------------

RESPONSE(post#350)

I suspect Solomon didn't have to drug women; he was the King and could have any woman he wanted. He was the King and women flocked to him; just like they flocked to Wierwille. Like some kind of a rock star.

I don't know why he had to use drugs though; he had all the women without them. That was wrong for sure. But maybe he did it just to loosen them up? You know the uptight ones. I never tried it, but I heard that some of these date rape drugs enhance the sexual desire. Sort of like a sexual aid.

BTW most if not all men fantisize about young women. That is a fact of nature and any guy who disputes this is either lying or gay.

Edited October 23, 2007 by waysider

[waysider]

As a mater of clarification, the "response" in my previous post was not mine. It was Oldiesman's

[dmiller]

Here ya go Chef ------

@ Oct 22 2007, 08:26 AM)

Show me where Solomon drugged and raped women. Show me where he taught that he'd heal them with his 'manhood.'

The issue isn't vp's amount of sexual desire, nor is it the time period that he was born, The issue is HOW he chose to use people - young girls at that - to fulfill his sexual desires. Another issue is manipulation.

The very fact that you're so impressed with his amount of sexual desire says more about you than it does about anyone else. The amount isn't evil. The desire isn't evil. Even a GREAT amount isn't evil. Manipulation, drugging, lying and rape are evil.

And Oldies answer is --------

I suspect Solomon didn't have to drug women; he was the King and could have any woman he wanted. He was the King and women flocked to him; just like they flocked to Wierwille. Like some kind of a rock star.

I don't know why he had to use drugs though; he had all the women without them. That was wrong for sure. But maybe he did it just to loosen them up? You know the uptight ones. I never tried it, but I heard that some of these date rape drugs enhance the sexual desire. Sort of like a sexual aid.

BTW most if not all men fantisize about young women. That is a fact of nature and any guy who disputes this is either lying or gay.

Woops -- Waysider beat me to it.

[dmiller]

Oldies -- you said (NOT a personal attack -- just quoting your words here) --

I don't know why he had to use drugs though;

he had all the women without them.

That was wrong for sure.

So --- let me get this straight. You condone docvic's sexual *prowess*,

yet condemn his use of drugs in it??? Am I getting that right???

What are your thoughts about Mrs. Wierwille during all of this???

Does she enter into the picture since she was MARRIED to the MOG ????

And WHERE (in our culture today) does a minister of the Gospel,

get away with adultery, pornography, or even *playing around* on his WIFE???

You've reached new heights of irrationality -- and NO I'm not *whining* as you said before.

Fer crying out loud --- dont'cha think Billy Graham had *women flocking to him*??

He had both the decency and personal integrity to NEVER BE ALONE WITH A WOMAN,

either in his office, an elevator, or any other inconspicuious place without someone else there.

Nother words -- he (BG) held himself accountable, which is more than docvic ever did.

Plain and simple -- docvic gave in to the temptations offered, whereas Billy Graham did not.

That right there tells me which of the two was a REAL MOG.

And as to your *fantacizing* comment about men with young women --- I don't.

And I am neither a liar nor homosexual (call a spade a spade, gay means happy),

when it comes to this subject.

You're supposing things that may exist in your world, but not neccesarily in others.

You've got problems, bud -- if you can accept what you said as truth.

There are so many inconsistencies (in your post #350) conflicting with REAL life,

that the original word *scary* is starting to make sense.

Please seek help -- even though I know you feel you are *above* it all,

seek it out anyway. Given what you've said - It's a needful thing, if you truely meant it.

David

[Goey]

By Oldiesman

I suspect Solomon didn't have to drug women; he was the King and could have any woman he wanted. He was the King and women flocked to him; just like they flocked to Wierwille. Like some kind of a rock star.

Solomon could not within the law have any woman he wanted. In regards to the King, Deuteronomy 17:16,17 says:

16:

But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt,

to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you,

Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17

:

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither

shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Only in the context of disobedience to God and unchecked power could Solomon "have any woman he wanted." The result of Solomon's disobedience was the loss of the kingdom. The scripture says Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord. The scriptures do not focus on the many wives and concubines other than to say that being idolaters, that they would turn Solomon from the Lord. The focus was not on the wives, but rather on Solomon's taking them in disobedience to God.

There is no record that women "flocked" to Solomon like a rock star (the implication being groupies wanting back stage sex). However, people did flock to VPW, both men and women, not for adulterous sex, but rather to learn the Word "like it hadn't been taught since the first century." But like Solomon he did evil in the sight of the Lord by disobeying God. Not only did VPW disobey, he led others into disobedience as well -- by teaching false doctrine.

VPW was certainly no king as there is no ministry of "king" in the NT church. However there is good evidence that he thought of himself as a king. The comparison of VPW to Solomon both fits and doesn't fit. It doesn't fit becasue VPW was not a real king.

However, both were men of relatively unchecked within their own "kingdoms". Both disobeyed God in a big way. There is no record of either man repenting or showing remorse. Solomon lost the kingdom as a result of his disobedience. VPWs "kingdom" began to fall apart during his lifetime and eventually did fall apart for all practical purposes and became "divided" like Solomon's.

I don't know why he had to use drugs though; he had all the women without them. That was wrong for sure. But maybe he did it just to loosen them up? You know the uptight ones. I never tried it, but I heard that some of these date rape drugs enhance the sexual desire. Sort of like a sexual aid.

Are you blind? He had to use drugs because THEY WERE NOT WILLING! These were knock out drugs - not Viagra.

BTW most if not all men fantisize about young women. That is a fact of nature and any guy who disputes this is either lying or gay.

This is so stupid, absurd, and abnormal in the context of this discussion that it is not worthy of a response other than:

Oldies, you need some serious help.

Edited October 25, 2007 by Goey

[oldiesman]

Thanks for your help Goey. And I have already apologized for making that statement.

[DontWorryBeHappy]

Oldiesman!...............you "have already apologized for making that statement"????...............you have???..................where??.................when??...........to whom have you apologized??..........and, most importantly, WHY HAVE YOU APOLOGIZED???.......................................peace!

[GarthP2000]

I suspect Solomon didn't have to drug women; he was the King and could have any woman he wanted. He was the King and women flocked to him; just like they flocked to Wierwille. (Note the comparison between Solomon and Weirwille) Like some kind of a rock star.

I don't know why he had to use drugs though; he had all the women without them. That was wrong for sure. But maybe he did it just to loosen them up? You know the uptight ones. I never tried it, but I heard that some of these date rape drugs enhance the sexual desire. Sort of like a sexual aid.

BTW most if not all men fantisize about young women. That is a fact of nature and any guy who disputes this is either lying or gay.

Apologizing for simply making this statement isn't enough. You need to know what's wrong with what you said, and how serious. Let's go over the biggies here, shall we?

1) "But maybe he did it just to loosen them up? You know the uptight ones." Whether they were 'uptight' or not is irrelevent. No means no, and when a woman doesn't want to partake in sex, that's IT! ... Final decision. ... No appeal. ... Wierwille should have backed the hell off.

2) "but I heard that some of these date rape drugs enhance the sexual desire. Sort of like a sexual aid." Ahhh, no they don't. They act as resistance inhibitors, knocking the victim out while the attack occurs, and nullifying their memory of the event afterwards. ... That's why they call it a date rape drug, guy.

You're weak, pathetic attempts at apology are just that. ... Weak. ... Pathetic. ... Yes, yes, I know. I'm calling names, yadayada. Well, someone with an attitude that makes posts like the one you made that is warned about here should be called names; they deserve no better.

I concur with everybody else here. Get some help!

[doojable]

Oldies

Let's not mince words.

Wierwille was a sexual predator.

He didn't just fantasize, he acted out his obsessions and committed criminal acts in the process.

Now, you can dance around and claim that since he was never prosecuted or found guilty, that makes him innocent.

Well, you may be correct in a court of law but in light of God's word, he is found "wanting in the balance".

Actually, in a court of law he is NOT considered innocent at all. He's was simply not charged. "Innocent" does not equal "Not Guilty. If he had been charged he would have most likely been found guilty, but if the jury was all tripping on LSD perhaps at most they would have found him NOT guilty. Juries don't really declare innocence. "

[TheEvan]

Goey, fantastic post! Wow.

[WordWolf]

Thanks for your help Goey. And I have already apologized for making that statement.

Oldiesman!

you "have already apologized for making that statement"????

you have???

where??

when??

to whom have you apologized??

and, most importantly, WHY HAVE YOU APOLOGIZED???

peace!

Posted on: Oct 22 2007, 10:12 AM

BTW most if not all men fantisize about young women. That is a fact of nature and any guy who disputes this is either lying or gay.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=376036

Posted on: Oct 22 2007, 01:06 PM

Groucho, you and others are correct,

I am not a spokesman for all men and should not have written that. My apologies to all, for the blanket statement "any guy who disputes this is either lying or gay." Sorry, please forgive.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=376116

[GarthP2000]

WW,

Olds' 'apology' doesn't even begin to cover the troubling aspects of his posts in the discussed thread. ... So he backs off of the 'either they are lying or they are gay' part. ... Wow! BIG concession on his part.

There is still a lot of what he posted there he needs to deal with. <_<

[Danny]

Larry I have 2 words for you

and they aint Merry Christmas.

Thanks Goey

I read those verse a few times and eluted to them in one of my post.

I took the class when I was 17. To that point in my life I never had read the

bible. In that part of the class vp say his bit about the king

How would I know he was wrong?

He was a Dr. in the field of the bible. I taught he knew what he was talking about.

I was wrong and was lead wrong.

I was like the drunk he talks about. I came to get help and all he did was put me deeper in the hole of life.

To worship a false God of Believing. Works for saint and sinner alike.

As far as the apology goes I place akin to repentance. I can say any thing like I'm sorry

but if I don't change my ways they are empty words.

Larry

You earned where you are at.

If you say perverted things I will warn others of you.

What oldies said was perverted.

And how would you know? You say you don't believe in my God.

Where do you get your moral compass? Don't answer I don't care to know.

And yes if I was a cop in NYC and a rape or a person was drugged close to our

friends apartment I would be looking at him.

If he didn't want that kind of scrutiny he should of took his mind out of the gutter

and not put on the net for the whole word to see. I pray it scared him so he would repent.

[GarthP2000]

Larry I have 2 words for you

and they aint Merry Christmas.

Good one, Danny! That was my laugh for the day!

Larry,

You're a sick, sick man Danny. I'm absolutely flabbergasted at the accusations and innuendo that some of you are making about Oldies character. To even hint at him being a sexual pervert/pedophile not only crosses the line but is indicative of an unsound mind. IMO those doing this should join me in the land of pre-screening of posts. That Paw would allow this sort of crap to continue is pathetically bias.

Dude! Oldies hung himself with his own words. Anybody with at least a 6th grade level of English should see the not-so-subtle meaning/rendering of Oldies posts, how far it goes to whitewash Wierwille's reputation, and how much it capriciously downplays the sexual abuse the victims (Yes Oldies, I said victims. Get over it!) and what they went through. And given that Oldies isn't a sexual pervert/pedophile, his posts clearly illustrate his strong (and unjustified) defense of one who was. ... Which DOES put a question mark over his character. At least!

He needs to learn that ... Pronto!

Edited October 25, 2007 by GarthP2000

[DontWorryBeHappy]

thanks wordwolf for pointing me to the "apology"...............but it's only limited to the last line of that horrendous post???.............that's absolutely pathetic oldiesman!...........that's the one line that to me is the least offensive!!.......i thought , mistakenly, apparently, that you actually experienced a moment of lucidity, and apologized for that entire post!!!..............that's why i asked the questions i asked..........................

do you have any relationships with women in your life that encourage you to post the things you do and honestly support what you say????.............or do you just come up with these disturbed, perverted rants on your own???...........i'm still relatively new here at the spot, so i'm wondering if you are just playing "devil's advocate" or do you really believe the things you've posted on this thread???..............seriously................do you just have a sick sense of humor, or do you really believe all the things you've posted here???..........................please advise....................thanks.....................................peace!

Edited October 25, 2007 by Don'tWorryBeHappy

[Sunesis]

Don't Worry Be Happy, Oldies is not joking, this is truly what he believes. He's been spouting this crap for a few years now, insinuating the victims are lying, and idolizes VP and his teachings.

He's sad. Larry Moore is new, was banned because he deliberately tried to derail any thread he was on, and is now back and is a fanboy of Oldies. Peas in a pod.

I can almost guarantee you Oldies does not have a girlfriend and watches a lot of porno, as per VP's example. Where else would he get all this crap and his views on women? He lives in a fantasy world and quite frankly, has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to women.

By the way, where in the Bible does it say for women to "loosen up"? And where does it say it was VP's job to do so? That's just absurd. More of VP's made up one liners and Oldies bought it.

The guy is truly a brainwashed headcase. He drank too much Kool Aid. I don't play with him anymore. Sadly, he really is for real.

[rascal]

The very sad part is that rather than him or his understanding, Oldies has been slyly implying for years that it is the people coming forward that have something wrong with them....ie they are liars or exaggerators, or misunderstood, or making a mountain out of a mole hill....wanted..asked for deserved what they got...etc

Usually he could then rally around a few buddies to slam and discredit the people who were trying to share...untill they bullied folks into silence.

Edited October 25, 2007 by rascal

[cman]

Thinking about it, there was always some kind of sex riddled through out every class by vpw.

And most of it was not your normal type behavior.

Evidence of where vp's mind was. Abnormal concerning men and women.

Unfortunately I don't think he ever understood 'male and female' at all.

And I don't think Larry was ever in the way cause all he does is pick up what he can here and go with it. Justgoogle his name in quatation marks and you can see what he has done at other forums.

And Oldies is a bit different, having not much to live for-he thinks-if not defending vpw and his teachings.

He defends most of them without thinking, though some he has put some thought into.

I really don't think he knows what wierwielle taught, and it's motivation from vp's heart.

The actions of vp don't fit with any of the fruit of the spirit.

Vp's words are calloused from pfal on, against anyone who thinks differently.

I really don't fault oldies or vp, ignorance and selfishness is far from God.

When to be informed and selfless is so much easier.

We were taught to fight for the word, yet it says let.

Once we quit fighting we learn who we were fighting.

[oldiesman]

And yes if I was a cop in NYC and a rape or a person was drugged close to our friends apartment I would be looking at him.

If he didn't want that kind of scrutiny he should of took his mind out of the gutter

and not put on the net for the whole word to see. I pray it scared him so he would repent.

I wasn't scared Danny. In fact, one of the first things I actually thought about after reading your post about the sex crimes unit breaking down my door, were dollar signs if this event actually occurred.

Let the sex crimes unit break down my door, confiscate all my personal belongings, arrest me and throw me in jail, find nothing, and inform me that they took this action based upon the picture that was painted of me by posts from this thread of yours Danny.

I would hate to think that a brother in Christ or frankly anyone else would figure prominently in a lawsuit filed by me. But if some posters continue on the present discourse of personal attack and character assassination as demonstrated in this thread, and if an event like a break-in and confiscation of my personal property and false imprisonment from the government ever were to actually occur; some of the posters here may be in deep more than they may ever realize.

[Tom Strange]

I still haven't seen what I'd call a "personal attack"... I've seen folks responding to your bizarre statements...

[Nero]

Oldies - I don't think anyone wants the police to knock down your door - but your whole post in general is so creepy I can't help but worry about you.

[GarthP2000]

((shakes my head))

Chief, if you're trying to play lawyer, ... do not (repeat: do NOT) give up your day job. I'm not even a 1st year law student, and even *I* can see that you'd get NOWHERE with that suit.

If, even if, the SVU came breaking down your door, yadayada, like you portray, there is no way you can legally or logically implicate us. Seeing that such units would be acting on just our posts, the ONLY ones you could possibly sue would be the aforementioned SVU, since they would be entirely responsible for making that decision.

"Personal attack and character assassination". Yeah, right guy. Look at the posts you made about Weirwille in reference to his rape victims! Look at how cavalier they are? And they are about the 'sisters in Christ' that are part of your 'family'. Yet you want to be spared harsh words? Why shouldn't this kind of rebuke come your way? All because of your loyalty to Weirwille and his 'teaching you the Word'? That is where your loyalty resides? Above having genuine concern for the people he abused?

That's what your god is all about?? Is that what 'The Word' preaches? ((scoffs)) And you wonder why people like me left. <_<

And as regards any possibility of a suit from you, .... bring it on! (Oh by the way, I would demand a jury trial. See if you can figure out why.)

And I'm saying that on the record.