You don`t think it was *uck* for a twenty yr old to rub the buttocks of a 50 something man? You don`t think that is every bit as repulsive??? You don`t think it is upsetting to be asked to lie in bed next to a man as old as your grandpa??
It is GROSS! The *ick* factor is every bit as real for a young girl as it would be for you as a young man.
wow... i can't believe we are having this conversation about whether or not it is a sin for a lewd, lascivious, lecherous old man (who claims to be a man of "god") to GROOM a potential victim for further sexual exploitation!!
and vpw's actions fall under the category of GROOMING!!
you have to be spiritually blind not to know that this kind of behavior is wrong...
even non-christians KNOW that it is wrong!
for someone who calls themselves a christian to defend this behavior is outrageous,
and defending such disgustingly lecherous acts is what gives the true christians a bad name...
it reminds me of that passage in scripture where paul chastizes the corinthians:
It is reported commonly [that there is] fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
this could just as easily read:
it is reported commonly that there are lewd, lascivious, lecherous acts being performed among you, and such acts as are not so much as named among the non-christians, that a lewd, lascivious, lecherous old man (who calls himself a man of 'god') should GROOM young innocent girls of the flock of God for further sexual exploitation......
OUTRAGEOUS that anyone should defend such behavior!!
there is only one way to explain such a spiritually blind position and that is via IDOLATRY...
when one idolizes a lewd, lascivious, lecherous, old man, then one finds it necessary to defend his lewd, lascivious, lecherous behavior...
and claim that there is nothing wrong with it (gag)...
when we all give an account of our actions to God, do you think that vpw will be praised for this?!?
do you think God will say: well done, thou good and faithful servant?!?... thank you for taking care of my sheep?!?
you gotta be nuts to think that God condones this!
(or else you gotta have a different "god"... and that's called IDOLATRY)
Sunesis, your post was nauseating because it had sort of a homosexual suggestion to it. uck. Whether you intended that, I can't say, but that's how it came off to me. Maybe that sort of thing isn't offensive to you, but I don't engage in it. Now let's say a female asked me to rub her buttocks, I'd choose what I want to do, but that shouldn't be a gay issue. Does that answer your question?
So what's the problem , Oldies?
When it involved a woman you didn't see it as a sex act.
Why would it now be homosexual?
You said yourself it was just an innocent back rub.
I would think you would be honored to give the man of God something as innocuous as a back rub.
You're not offended and could care less what VP did with the girl.
Yet, you are offended if he tried that with you.
Can you say double-standard boys and girls?
Its ok for VP to do things to girls, no skin off your back. You could care less. Hey, its just a little back rub.
But - if it were you in the same situation - you feel sick. Oh, now suddenly you care.
Yet, you can't understand why a female would also feel sick.
You feel sick - but you for the life of you can't understand why a girl would feel that way.
You proved my point.
You have just shown everyone what you are.
What's good for the gander, when all of a sudden it could be you, suddenly, it sure ain't good for the goose.
Double-standard.
That was a nice twisting job of my post. You left out what got me nauseated, the homosexual suggestion. Was that intentional, or you just don't want to address that vile suggestion made by you? Maybe you are used to that kind of stuff, who knows. But never mind, no more questions will be answered by me from you. I have rocks in my head to try to answer in the first place judging from your last few disrespectful posts to me.
so a "homosexual" suggestion is somehow worse than a lewd, lascivious, lecherous, grooming suggestion toward a young innocent girl who looks up to the man (who is making the suggestion) as a "man of god"?!?
the "homosexual" suggestion is vile...
but the lewd, lascivious, lecherous, grooming suggestion is NOT vile?!?
what kind of logic is this?!?
when people are confronted with their idolatry and illogical reasoning due to it,
they become offended and act like injured victims...
and then (indignantly) refuse to respond anymore...
hmmmm...
p.s. maybe some people "are used to that kind of stuff"... (stuff=lewd, grooming suggestions)
No personal attack Oldies. Just fact. You are ok with this.
You have stated there is nothing wrong with what VP did. So, obviously, no problem if he did it to you. You would defend his actions in doing this with you. We understand that.
Here is your declaration of nausea:
Sunesis, your post was nauseating because it had sort of a homosexual suggestion to it. uck. Whether you intended that, I can't say, but that's how it came off to me. Maybe that sort of thing isn't offensive to you, but I don't engage in it. Now let's say a female asked me to rub her buttocks, I'd choose what I want to do, but that shouldn't be a gay issue. Does that answer your question?
But this post belies your real understanding of the situation and not just your "for the camera" reasoning.
If it were truly "just a backrub" then there would be nothing homosexual about the massage. There are male massage therapists that work on males on a regular basis. And yes, they sometimes have to massage the gluteous maximus.
The real question is NOT whether or not a young girl asked ANYTHING. The scenario was that a 50-something year old man asked a 20-something young lady to massage his buttocks and then lay beside him.
If it were a young man of the same age that Icky Vic asked, the scenario would still be inappropriate.
so a "homosexual" suggestion is somehow worse than a lewd, lascivious, lecherous, grooming suggestion toward a young innocent girl who looks up to the man (who is making the suggestion) as a "man of god"?!?
the "homosexual" suggestion is vile...
but the lewd, lascivious, lecherous, grooming suggestion is NOT vile?!?
what kind of logic is this?!?
I get your point, but I disagree. Yes the homosexual suggestion is vile to me. I think its sick. Now if a female leader wanted a massage from me, I'd have to consider what my mindset were at the time, but I would say generally it wouldn't be vile and disgusting for me to do that for her. Maybe you think that its vile and lewd to give a massage, and of course you have a right to your opinion. I disagree with your opinion that VP was grooming sky for future sexual contact with her. There is no evidence of that.
if a 55 year old woman in a position of power (the utmost position as the spokesperson for God Himself) asked you as a 20-year-old to massage her drambouie-soaked buttocks, and lay beside you with her arm around you, it most definitely WOULD be a vile and disgusting thing to request, as well as an ABUSE of power...
btw, this is the same kind of logic the muslims use to defend their pedophile prophet, muhammad, who married a 6-year-old girl named ayisha, and consumated the "marriage" with her when she was 8-years-old... they say "she consented" to the marriage...
There you go again with the idolatry accusation. Ok, you're entitled to your opinion. However in my opinion saying that over and over about a poster isn't in compliance with the forum rules.
That was a nice twisting job of my post. You left out what got me nauseated, the homosexual suggestion. Was that intentional, or you just don't want to address that vile suggestion made by you? Maybe you are used to that kind of stuff, who knows. But never mind, no more questions will be answered by me from you. I have rocks in my head to try to answer in the first place judging from your last few disrespectful posts to me.
Well, now I'm confused.
First you said it wasn't sexual in nature and now you say it IS sexual in nature.
What has changed that has suddenly caused the reversal of perception?
There is no evidence of that. She went through the whole Way process from WOW to Corps to Staff, without a similar incident from VP. Doesn't seem she was on his list.
There is no evidence of that. She went through the whole Way process from WOW to Corps to Staff, without a similar incident from VP. Doesn't seem she was on his list.
First you said it wasn't sexual in nature and now you say it IS sexual in nature.
What has changed that has suddenly caused the reversal of perception?
I mean, either it was sexual or it was not.
I re-read my posts relating to sky's story and don't see where I said it wasn't sexual in nature. Where do you get that from? I didn't say that. I opined it wasn't sexual sin. That's my opinion, you're entitled to yours.
And you know this-----HOW?
Did you read her post? Did you see another incident with Wierwille? Please quit asking me these moronic questions.
There you go again with the idolatry accusation. Ok, you're entitled to your opinion. However in my opinion saying that over and over about a poster isn't in compliance with the forum rules.
oldies, i did not mention you by name...
but i did tell you on another thread, that although i would not directly call you anything...
i most definitely would continue to point out and speak out against idolatrous behavior...
and i stuck by that agreement...
oldies,
if the shoe fits.......
(and you don't like it)...
perhaps, you should try on a different shoe...
peace,
jen-o
p.s. the point being made, oldies, is that IF it was NOT sexual in nature, then why do you consider it homosexual in nature if the very same "innocent buttocks-massage" request were made to you by vpw??
I get your point, but I disagree. Yes the homosexual suggestion is vile to me. I think its sick. Now if a female leader wanted a massage from me, I'd have to consider what my mindset were at the time, but I would say generally it wouldn't be vile and disgusting for me to do that for her. Maybe you think that its vile and lewd to give a massage, and of course you have a right to your opinion. I disagree with your opinion that VP was grooming sky for future sexual contact with her. There is no evidence of that.
I thank God that opinions like yours will evaporate in the bigger picture. Your refusal to acknowlege the abuse of spiritual power is sad very sad. You are an example of waythink at it's finest. These women, hundreds upon hundreds of them WERE abused by men in position of power, not just any power, but power that we all thought was God-given. I don't give a hoot what you or Prager say, closing your mind doesn't make it disappear!! Aside from this topic of subtle abuse, you are missing out on being compassionate for other human beings.
It is sad to see an eyewitness, baring her soul, get stomped on by you. You should be ashamed of your actions. The brave person here is Sky for she told what happened.
And go ahead and report me, if the mods want this post down, then so be it.
It is sad to see an eyewitness, baring her soul, get stomped on by you. You should be ashamed of your actions. The brave person here is Sky for she told what happened.
Now wait a second, I'm not stomping on sky or judging any of her actions in this matter. When did I do that? In contrast, it is some of you folks who are calling her incident vile and lewd. I don't think she did anything wrong or should be ashamed about anything. Posters say Wierwille is vile and lewd. Ok folks are entitled to that opinion but I didn't stomp on sky in any way. I think the judgments and condemnations are coming from others, not me.
I re-read my posts relating to sky's story and don't see where I said it wasn't sexual in nature. Where do you get that from? I didn't say that. I opined it wasn't sexual sin. That's my opinion, you're entitled to yours.
Did you read her post? Did you see another incident with Wierwille? Please quit asking me these moronic questions.
Yes, I read her post.
Did I see another incident with Wierwille? No.
I did see "virtually unscathed", though.
You see, Oldies, the issue is now, not whether or not she had another encounter with Wierwille but, the fact that you erroneously drew that conclusion from the omission of any reference to it in the body of the post.
I fail to see anything moronic about that observation.
I thank God that opinions like yours will evaporate in the bigger picture. Your refusal to acknowlege the abuse of spiritual power is sad very sad. You are an example of waythink at it's finest. These women, hundreds upon hundreds of them WERE abused by men in position of power, not just any power, but power that we all thought was God-given. I don't give a hoot what you or Prager say, closing your mind doesn't make it disappear!! Aside from this topic of subtle abuse, you are missing out on being compassionate for other human beings.
It is sad to see an eyewitness, baring her soul, get stomped on by you. You should be ashamed of your actions. The brave person here is Sky for she told what happened.
And go ahead and report me, if the mods want this post down, then so be it.
Perhaps posts like this would best be PM'd to someone privately rather than humilate a poster in public. (Matthew 18:15)
Humiliating someone like this in public especially from the owner of a website does little but encourage anger and retribution, not repentance. Taking it private is the respectable and right thing to do, which is why its suggested in the forum rules.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
40
26
37
Popular Days
May 8
31
May 9
31
May 12
26
May 11
21
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 26 posts
oldiesman 40 posts
jen-o 26 posts
waysider 37 posts
Popular Days
May 8 2008
31 posts
May 9 2008
31 posts
May 12 2008
26 posts
May 11 2008
21 posts
rascal
You don`t think it was *uck* for a twenty yr old to rub the buttocks of a 50 something man? You don`t think that is every bit as repulsive??? You don`t think it is upsetting to be asked to lie in bed next to a man as old as your grandpa??
It is GROSS! The *ick* factor is every bit as real for a young girl as it would be for you as a young man.
Repulsive and Nasty and inapropriate.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
wow... i can't believe we are having this conversation about whether or not it is a sin for a lewd, lascivious, lecherous old man (who claims to be a man of "god") to GROOM a potential victim for further sexual exploitation!!
and vpw's actions fall under the category of GROOMING!!
you have to be spiritually blind not to know that this kind of behavior is wrong...
even non-christians KNOW that it is wrong!
for someone who calls themselves a christian to defend this behavior is outrageous,
and defending such disgustingly lecherous acts is what gives the true christians a bad name...
it reminds me of that passage in scripture where paul chastizes the corinthians:
It is reported commonly [that there is] fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
this could just as easily read:
it is reported commonly that there are lewd, lascivious, lecherous acts being performed among you, and such acts as are not so much as named among the non-christians, that a lewd, lascivious, lecherous old man (who calls himself a man of 'god') should GROOM young innocent girls of the flock of God for further sexual exploitation......
OUTRAGEOUS that anyone should defend such behavior!!
there is only one way to explain such a spiritually blind position and that is via IDOLATRY...
when one idolizes a lewd, lascivious, lecherous, old man, then one finds it necessary to defend his lewd, lascivious, lecherous behavior...
and claim that there is nothing wrong with it (gag)...
when we all give an account of our actions to God, do you think that vpw will be praised for this?!?
do you think God will say: well done, thou good and faithful servant?!?... thank you for taking care of my sheep?!?
you gotta be nuts to think that God condones this!
(or else you gotta have a different "god"... and that's called IDOLATRY)
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
So what's the problem , Oldies?
When it involved a woman you didn't see it as a sex act.
Why would it now be homosexual?
You said yourself it was just an innocent back rub.
I would think you would be honored to give the man of God something as innocuous as a back rub.
What's the difference?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Just as I thought Oldies.
You're not offended and could care less what VP did with the girl.
Yet, you are offended if he tried that with you.
Can you say double-standard boys and girls?
Its ok for VP to do things to girls, no skin off your back. You could care less. Hey, its just a little back rub.
But - if it were you in the same situation - you feel sick. Oh, now suddenly you care.
Yet, you can't understand why a female would also feel sick.
You feel sick - but you for the life of you can't understand why a girl would feel that way.
You proved my point.
You have just shown everyone what you are.
What's good for the gander, when all of a sudden it could be you, suddenly, it sure ain't good for the goose.
Double-standard.
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
copenhagen
Sky, your heart is wonderful and I am glad you moved on.
It was never even close to being ok to be put in that situation.
Oliesman,
I work in a big company and I am over a lot of people,
being the boss gives you power.
I have people come in my office all the time who are scared to
ask for tome off they have earned.
People are afraid to speak up over extra hours needed to finish
a job with a deadline. I know they say no problam to my face and behind my
back mumble.
I had an guy who had been with the company 25 years afraid to ask me to sign
somepaper work to get money out of HIS 401K. It was his money.
The point Oldies is VP was above the law in way world.
I will bet my life VP knew how uncomfortable Sky was.
He was wrong to use his power for his own selfish lust.
Then the point of how inappropiate it was. A Reverand
in bed with a 20 year old woman WHO IS NOT HIS WIFE.
There is no way to explain that to my wife.
copenhagen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
That was a nice twisting job of my post. You left out what got me nauseated, the homosexual suggestion. Was that intentional, or you just don't want to address that vile suggestion made by you? Maybe you are used to that kind of stuff, who knows. But never mind, no more questions will be answered by me from you. I have rocks in my head to try to answer in the first place judging from your last few disrespectful posts to me.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
so a "homosexual" suggestion is somehow worse than a lewd, lascivious, lecherous, grooming suggestion toward a young innocent girl who looks up to the man (who is making the suggestion) as a "man of god"?!?
the "homosexual" suggestion is vile...
but the lewd, lascivious, lecherous, grooming suggestion is NOT vile?!?
what kind of logic is this?!?
when people are confronted with their idolatry and illogical reasoning due to it,
they become offended and act like injured victims...
and then (indignantly) refuse to respond anymore...
hmmmm...
p.s. maybe some people "are used to that kind of stuff"... (stuff=lewd, grooming suggestions)
maybe that's why it doesn't bother them...
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Here is what Sunesis said:
Here is your declaration of nausea:
But this post belies your real understanding of the situation and not just your "for the camera" reasoning.
If it were truly "just a backrub" then there would be nothing homosexual about the massage. There are male massage therapists that work on males on a regular basis. And yes, they sometimes have to massage the gluteous maximus.
The real question is NOT whether or not a young girl asked ANYTHING. The scenario was that a 50-something year old man asked a 20-something young lady to massage his buttocks and then lay beside him.
If it were a young man of the same age that Icky Vic asked, the scenario would still be inappropriate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I get your point, but I disagree. Yes the homosexual suggestion is vile to me. I think its sick. Now if a female leader wanted a massage from me, I'd have to consider what my mindset were at the time, but I would say generally it wouldn't be vile and disgusting for me to do that for her. Maybe you think that its vile and lewd to give a massage, and of course you have a right to your opinion. I disagree with your opinion that VP was grooming sky for future sexual contact with her. There is no evidence of that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
there IS evidence for that!
that is what grooming is!!
you just don't want to see it!!
if a 55 year old woman in a position of power (the utmost position as the spokesperson for God Himself) asked you as a 20-year-old to massage her drambouie-soaked buttocks, and lay beside you with her arm around you, it most definitely WOULD be a vile and disgusting thing to request, as well as an ABUSE of power...
btw, this is the same kind of logic the muslims use to defend their pedophile prophet, muhammad, who married a 6-year-old girl named ayisha, and consumated the "marriage" with her when she was 8-years-old... they say "she consented" to the marriage...
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
There you go again with the idolatry accusation. Ok, you're entitled to your opinion. However in my opinion saying that over and over about a poster isn't in compliance with the forum rules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well, now I'm confused.
First you said it wasn't sexual in nature and now you say it IS sexual in nature.
What has changed that has suddenly caused the reversal of perception?
I mean, either it was sexual or it was not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
There is no evidence of that. She went through the whole Way process from WOW to Corps to Staff, without a similar incident from VP. Doesn't seem she was on his list.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
And you know this-----HOW?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I re-read my posts relating to sky's story and don't see where I said it wasn't sexual in nature. Where do you get that from? I didn't say that. I opined it wasn't sexual sin. That's my opinion, you're entitled to yours.
Did you read her post? Did you see another incident with Wierwille? Please quit asking me these moronic questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
oldies, i did not mention you by name...
but i did tell you on another thread, that although i would not directly call you anything...
i most definitely would continue to point out and speak out against idolatrous behavior...
and i stuck by that agreement...
oldies,
if the shoe fits.......
(and you don't like it)...
perhaps, you should try on a different shoe...
peace,
jen-o
p.s. the point being made, oldies, is that IF it was NOT sexual in nature, then why do you consider it homosexual in nature if the very same "innocent buttocks-massage" request were made to you by vpw??
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
I thank God that opinions like yours will evaporate in the bigger picture. Your refusal to acknowlege the abuse of spiritual power is sad very sad. You are an example of waythink at it's finest. These women, hundreds upon hundreds of them WERE abused by men in position of power, not just any power, but power that we all thought was God-given. I don't give a hoot what you or Prager say, closing your mind doesn't make it disappear!! Aside from this topic of subtle abuse, you are missing out on being compassionate for other human beings.
It is sad to see an eyewitness, baring her soul, get stomped on by you. You should be ashamed of your actions. The brave person here is Sky for she told what happened.
And go ahead and report me, if the mods want this post down, then so be it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Now wait a second, I'm not stomping on sky or judging any of her actions in this matter. When did I do that? In contrast, it is some of you folks who are calling her incident vile and lewd. I don't think she did anything wrong or should be ashamed about anything. Posters say Wierwille is vile and lewd. Ok folks are entitled to that opinion but I didn't stomp on sky in any way. I think the judgments and condemnations are coming from others, not me.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yes, I read her post.
Did I see another incident with Wierwille? No.
I did see "virtually unscathed", though.
You see, Oldies, the issue is now, not whether or not she had another encounter with Wierwille but, the fact that you erroneously drew that conclusion from the omission of any reference to it in the body of the post.
I fail to see anything moronic about that observation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
pawtucket,
aren't you the main mod?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Perhaps posts like this would best be PM'd to someone privately rather than humilate a poster in public. (Matthew 18:15)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Or perhaps they need to be right out in the open.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Humiliating someone like this in public especially from the owner of a website does little but encourage anger and retribution, not repentance. Taking it private is the respectable and right thing to do, which is why its suggested in the forum rules.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
oldies,
why would you feel humiliated by this post?!?
one would only feel humiliated if one thought their position (or actions) were wrong...
Link to comment
Share on other sites