Ie., from TWI because of your kind of TWI mentality, and from the faith due to the expectation to believe in religious material w/o proof, ... or w/o question. <_<
Ie., from TWI because of your kind of TWI mentality, and from the faith due to the expectation to believe in religious material w/o proof, ... or w/o question. <_<
Thanks for the clarification. It just seemed like you were blaming folks like me for your lack of faith, when it appears to be something else entirely.
Ie., from TWI because of your kind of TWI mentality, and from the faith due to the expectation to believe in religious material w/o proof, ... or w/o question. <_<
Oldies - what does having a lack of faith have to do with your statement?
Again...
"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."
This is what you said... so what does that have to do with someone having faith?
None.
It seems all you are trying to do is veer us off the subject of your perverted post and have us argue about something else entirely.
"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."
Oldies says that he doesn't know why VP had to use drugs becasue, in Oldies world, VPW had "all" the women without them (drugs). In his world "all" the women in TWI flocked to VPW for adulterous sex. Yet he doesn't deny the use of drugs. He says that VP's used of drugs was wrong ----- with a big "but". So rather than use common sense he looks for a loophole.
His "but" is that VP may have used the drugs to "loosen up" the uptight ones. He never considers or addresses why some might be "uptight". He implies that being "uptight" in a situation of, adultery (at best) is is not good -- that they needed to loosen up. He implies that, in an adultery situtation, VPW would not have been wrong in giving drugs to someone without their knowledge if it served to "loosen them up sexually". That's the "but."
He says that he never tried it himself. (Yet we know that people close to him probably did.) Then he says that he "heard" that some of the date rape drugs "enhance sexual desire", but he doesnt say where he heard it.
His failure to investigate from a reliable source how date rate drugs work, leads to an irrational and ignorant argument. He conviently relies instead upon something he "heard" which better fits his view.
All I can conclude from this is that Oldies believes that adultery is ok if the MOG gets blessed and the women are willing. Even if VPW taught them that contrary word, becasue they should have known better.
He believes that ALL the women that VPW had were willing, and flocked to him for adulterous sex.
He believes that it is ok for the MOG to drug these willing women without their knowledge if they are "uptight" because they needed to loosen up.
He does not consider that date rape drugs are not "sexual aids" - that they are designed and used to knock-out women who might be unwilling to have consensual sex. Therefore he does not have to explain why VPW would need to knock out a willing woman who flocked to him for adulterous sex.
If he honestly considered the Bible, the facts about date rape drugs, the testimony of witnesses, etc, then he would forced to consider that some women may actually have been unwilling, and therefore raped --- and that's not possible in Oldies world.
He would rather hold on to these sick, unbiblical, morally corrupt, and socially abnormal views than to consider that
anyone was abused or that VPW was the source of that abuse.
This may be what the Bible refers to as a seared conscience.
* Rohypnol is NOT legal in the U.S. It is legal in Europe and Mexico and prescribed for sleep problems and as an anesthetic (medicine given during surgery so you don't feel pain). It is brought into the U.S. illegally.
*Ketamine is legal in the U.S. for use as an anesthetic for humans and animals. It is mostly used on animals. Veterinary clinics are robbed for their Ketamine supply.
* GHB was recently made legal in the U.S to treat problems from narcolepsy (a sleep problem).
On the site the effect of the drugs are listed. I suspect the "enhanced sexual desire" is not on the part of the woman because she's been given something to knock her out.
Forget for a moment that we are talking about Wierwille here.
Suppose you read or heard on the news that there was a guy in, let's say Nebraska or New Jersey, who was running a cheerleader summer camp as a pretense for such activities.
Would you be inclined to say,"Oh, he was trying to 'loosen them up' so they could perform their cheers better."?
Geeze Louise!---The guy committed premeditated sexual predation.
Most rational thinking people would be embarrassed to admit they knew him and rode around on a motorcycle with him, much less come to his defense when the evidence appeared so damning.
Is there really any legal difference here between a guy who does this as part of a secular activity and one who does it as part of a religious activity?
Please note that I have removed the "spiritual" aspect from the question.
The man has been dead for 20 years and yet he is still spiritually raping those who pledge their allegiance to him and blindly defend his "ministry".
I don't feel anger toward these guys.
I feel sympathy.
They have been slipped a "mickey" and don't even realize it.
hummm, let see what else it says about the innermost thoughts...............
Matthew 5:28
28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart
...
The very next verse says: (Matthew 5.29)
If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.
The next thing people will probably be saying is, "Guess that 'plains Wierwille's glass eye!"
"29"If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
30"If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell."
Here Jesus warned them-and us- of the dangers and severity of sin.
Jesus warned us that-if something is an occasion to sin for us, makes it likely we will sin-
we should GET RID OF IT, we should REMOVE IT FROM OUR LIVES.
If drinking leads to poor judgement, which leads to sin in a person's life
(like drinking and having one-night stands and anonymous sex),
then the person is to STOP DRINKING and avoid sin.
If going to a certain building leads to a person sinning, they are to AVOID THE BUILDING
and avoid sin.
What's the opposite of this?
Instead of taking steps to avoid sin, that would be taking steps to make sin EASIER,
to FACILITATE sin.
For example, setting up a specific location to sin (like an office or motorcoach),
furnishing such a location for sinning (like, say, with alcohol or drugs),
and so on.
Much of sin-especially the sin that hurts others- is based around steps of sin where
one makes decisions one after another, each leading to the sin.
If one quotes George Carlin, it becomes easier to see steps and decision points.
Speaking of his Catholic upbringing, and its view of sin to him as a youth,
"It was a sin to WANT to feel up Ellen,
it was a sin to PLAN to feel up Ellen,
it was a sin to figure out a PLACE to feel up Ellen,
it was a sin to TAKE Ellen to the place to feel her up,
it was a sin to TRY to feel her up,
and it was a sin to feel her up.
There were six sins in one feel, man!"
Some will miss the point, likely, and consider this just another excuse to hate
the Catholic Church. The point, however, is that each decision, and each action,
led up to the sin. At any point, that sinner could have stopped before the sin
was committed. Similarly, an adulterer- or an adulterer who teaches his students
that having sex with him isn't wrong- has MANY decision points before the actual
sin takes place- but he chooses to embrace the sin anyway.
On the other hand, Jesus would tell him to discard any item, any location, any
action, that leads to sin. It's not so hard at some of the smaller steps.
"Sin no more." Ok, how?
Start by eliminating plans to sin, and continue by making plans for alternatives,
then carrying them out.
Oh, and thanks for highlighting Matthew, those verses were worth discussing!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
5
7
10
5
Popular Days
Oct 22
30
Oct 25
19
Oct 24
14
Oct 28
2
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 5 posts
oldiesman 7 posts
Danny 10 posts
GarthP2000 5 posts
Popular Days
Oct 22 2007
30 posts
Oct 25 2007
19 posts
Oct 24 2007
14 posts
Oct 28 2007
2 posts
Nero
That's irrelevant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Danny -- Happy Halloween! -- to you likewise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Both!
Ie., from TWI because of your kind of TWI mentality, and from the faith due to the expectation to believe in religious material w/o proof, ... or w/o question. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
let's get specific-
Faith-the way faith
of which there is substance which is being demonstrated by oldies and a few others
there are other quite different faiths............with substance.........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Thanks for the clarification. It just seemed like you were blaming folks like me for your lack of faith, when it appears to be something else entirely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Oldies your faith is hate.
Your calling card is hate.
Your signature is hate.
Ever noticed?
It came from the way int.
Most everyone else has shed that crapola.
It is what wierwille taught and what is still taught by others who teach his stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Which came first? The chicken or the egg. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nero
Oldies - what does having a lack of faith have to do with your statement?
Again...
"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."
This is what you said... so what does that have to do with someone having faith?
None.
It seems all you are trying to do is veer us off the subject of your perverted post and have us argue about something else entirely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
Dude if you read I have the statement praying for you
Hoping you repent. asking you to seek help.
I think there is enough stuff of yours on a sever in the sky
where ever this stuff sits to make anyone even a bad judge to
do a double take.
you mention giving GHB to girls and how do you know about that.
Oh it was to losen her up judge. Don't mind the take my father in the
word showed me that neat trick.
I still say you need some help.
Ask any independent counseler to read your statements
not leting them know it's you they will be repulsed.
I will contiue to pray for you.
You have to have something before it gets assinated.
In all these years show me once where you reached out with compasion.
Once where you would pray for some hurt soul.
I'll check in it will be a long search with no results.
no you stike out with vile sick statements.
Most men
Most women
All
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Oldies says that he doesn't know why VP had to use drugs becasue, in Oldies world, VPW had "all" the women without them (drugs). In his world "all" the women in TWI flocked to VPW for adulterous sex. Yet he doesn't deny the use of drugs. He says that VP's used of drugs was wrong ----- with a big "but". So rather than use common sense he looks for a loophole.
His "but" is that VP may have used the drugs to "loosen up" the uptight ones. He never considers or addresses why some might be "uptight". He implies that being "uptight" in a situation of, adultery (at best) is is not good -- that they needed to loosen up. He implies that, in an adultery situtation, VPW would not have been wrong in giving drugs to someone without their knowledge if it served to "loosen them up sexually". That's the "but."
He says that he never tried it himself. (Yet we know that people close to him probably did.) Then he says that he "heard" that some of the date rape drugs "enhance sexual desire", but he doesnt say where he heard it.
His failure to investigate from a reliable source how date rate drugs work, leads to an irrational and ignorant argument. He conviently relies instead upon something he "heard" which better fits his view.
All I can conclude from this is that Oldies believes that adultery is ok if the MOG gets blessed and the women are willing. Even if VPW taught them that contrary word, becasue they should have known better.
He believes that ALL the women that VPW had were willing, and flocked to him for adulterous sex.
He believes that it is ok for the MOG to drug these willing women without their knowledge if they are "uptight" because they needed to loosen up.
He does not consider that date rape drugs are not "sexual aids" - that they are designed and used to knock-out women who might be unwilling to have consensual sex. Therefore he does not have to explain why VPW would need to knock out a willing woman who flocked to him for adulterous sex.
If he honestly considered the Bible, the facts about date rape drugs, the testimony of witnesses, etc, then he would forced to consider that some women may actually have been unwilling, and therefore raped --- and that's not possible in Oldies world.
He would rather hold on to these sick, unbiblical, morally corrupt, and socially abnormal views than to consider that
anyone was abused or that VPW was the source of that abuse.
This may be what the Bible refers to as a seared conscience.
Sad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Here is a list of current Date Rape Drugs
On the site the effect of the drugs are listed. I suspect the "enhanced sexual desire" is not on the part of the woman because she's been given something to knock her out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
In my first post on the warning I said
lets see how long he leaves this here.
wow and now I will get a lawyer and and
Hey oldies did u ever read your bible about bring others before the judge?
My message (oldies) is screwed up i will
make you for get about it by screaming fowl.
Was that change a word and a word ?
Different class?
Edited by DannyLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Forget for a moment that we are talking about Wierwille here.
Suppose you read or heard on the news that there was a guy in, let's say Nebraska or New Jersey, who was running a cheerleader summer camp as a pretense for such activities.
Would you be inclined to say,"Oh, he was trying to 'loosen them up' so they could perform their cheers better."?
Geeze Louise!---The guy committed premeditated sexual predation.
Most rational thinking people would be embarrassed to admit they knew him and rode around on a motorcycle with him, much less come to his defense when the evidence appeared so damning.
Is there really any legal difference here between a guy who does this as part of a secular activity and one who does it as part of a religious activity?
Please note that I have removed the "spiritual" aspect from the question.
The man has been dead for 20 years and yet he is still spiritually raping those who pledge their allegiance to him and blindly defend his "ministry".
I don't feel anger toward these guys.
I feel sympathy.
They have been slipped a "mickey" and don't even realize it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
David cried before God I have sinned aginst you.
Oh it was just drugs. I don't know why he had to use them
Most and all and everyone and every one wanted to service the mog.
Even me in protecting his every deed.. after all he did give me that ride
in his coach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
The very next verse says: (Matthew 5.29)
If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.
The next thing people will probably be saying is, "Guess that 'plains Wierwille's glass eye!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Matthew 5:29-30 (NASB)
"29"If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
30"If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell."
Here Jesus warned them-and us- of the dangers and severity of sin.
Jesus warned us that-if something is an occasion to sin for us, makes it likely we will sin-
we should GET RID OF IT, we should REMOVE IT FROM OUR LIVES.
If drinking leads to poor judgement, which leads to sin in a person's life
(like drinking and having one-night stands and anonymous sex),
then the person is to STOP DRINKING and avoid sin.
If going to a certain building leads to a person sinning, they are to AVOID THE BUILDING
and avoid sin.
What's the opposite of this?
Instead of taking steps to avoid sin, that would be taking steps to make sin EASIER,
to FACILITATE sin.
For example, setting up a specific location to sin (like an office or motorcoach),
furnishing such a location for sinning (like, say, with alcohol or drugs),
and so on.
Much of sin-especially the sin that hurts others- is based around steps of sin where
one makes decisions one after another, each leading to the sin.
If one quotes George Carlin, it becomes easier to see steps and decision points.
Speaking of his Catholic upbringing, and its view of sin to him as a youth,
"It was a sin to WANT to feel up Ellen,
it was a sin to PLAN to feel up Ellen,
it was a sin to figure out a PLACE to feel up Ellen,
it was a sin to TAKE Ellen to the place to feel her up,
it was a sin to TRY to feel her up,
and it was a sin to feel her up.
There were six sins in one feel, man!"
Some will miss the point, likely, and consider this just another excuse to hate
the Catholic Church. The point, however, is that each decision, and each action,
led up to the sin. At any point, that sinner could have stopped before the sin
was committed. Similarly, an adulterer- or an adulterer who teaches his students
that having sex with him isn't wrong- has MANY decision points before the actual
sin takes place- but he chooses to embrace the sin anyway.
On the other hand, Jesus would tell him to discard any item, any location, any
action, that leads to sin. It's not so hard at some of the smaller steps.
"Sin no more." Ok, how?
Start by eliminating plans to sin, and continue by making plans for alternatives,
then carrying them out.
Oh, and thanks for highlighting Matthew, those verses were worth discussing!
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.