Was vpw a good man?

[waysider]

Kinda gives new life to "A penny for your thoughts."

[Ham]

Very well perhaps..

:)

[Catcup]

I had a "savior"..

offered me Math 632..

and now the illusion dissolves..

where do we go from here..

so what do I do..

I drop back from Math 632, to Math 593..

well.. what's another semester, if I can pull it off..

hope this makes sense to somebody here..

I feel your pain.

http://www.zazzle.com/i_was_told_there_would_be_no_math_involved_tshirt-235000184133653891

Edited January 19, 2011 by Catcup

[Catcup]

...and remember:

http://www.zazzle.com/a_mans_calculator_t_shirt-235472602131619438

[johniam]

Wordwolf:

•Do not talk negatively about a fellow poster in a thread where he or she is not participating or start a new thread to "call out" that person.

Less than 2 weeks to go; what do you care, right?

But I will engage you anyway.

I never called VP a good man. I've never called myself a good man. I don't recall that you or any other poster called themselves a good man. Even Jesus didn't like being called a good man (Mark 10:18). Paul wrote that we live in a present evil world (Gal 1:4). Also wrote the good he would he doesn't do, but the evil he wouldn't do that's what he does (Rom 7:19). Who is fit to judge that VP won't get credit for what he did good?

Excathedra: OK, no scripture. I said VP was part of an entire generation of men. This doesn't mean that EVERY man in his generation was like that; just thicker in some places than others. In 1974 I hitched to Maine and back from Michigan where I lived at the time. Twenty four hours after I left I found myself in downtown Montreal, not speaking French and looking like the American white trash hippie freak I was. Got some dirty looks from the locals. Took me 6 hours to walk over the St. Lawrence seaway (2 bridges) and start hitching again.

Got a ride from a guy at least 50. He drove me to the freeway, then drove a mile past the freeway during which time he started masturbating, turned to me and asked me to "help him". I said no. He said you never did this? Oh, you don't know what you're missing. Then he let me out. Next ride was also from a guy at least 50 accompanied by a 12 year old boy. I haven't slept much since leaving MI. He gives me beer, says I can rest up at his place just off the freeway. Turns out to be 20 miles off the freeway down a lot of dirt roads. Foreign country. Foreign language. He said I could sleep in a single bed near the entrance door. Next thing I know the guy's in bed with me feeling on me kissing me. I froze. The 12 year old boy is right in the next room.

My life was never in danger but in my mind I'm freaking out. I jump up and weakly demand that he take me back to the highway. He taunts me, says aren't you afraid someone might rape you? But he takes me back. The next day I'm in Maine having been picked up by a thirty something woman. I didn't tell her what happened the day before; just that I came through Canada. She starts venting about those "damned French Canadian men who just rape everybody". Thicker in some places than others.

The reason I bring this up (I posted about this before) is because I'm certain that neither man who gave me those rides in Quebec thought they did anything ethically wrong. They were fully entitled to take whatever they found. Same generation.

My analogy is not a 100% match, but did VP think he didn't do anything ethically wrong? Or did he do what he thought he could get away with and just didn't care? Either way, of course I think it's horrible, but I can't simply delete something that continues to work for me 34 years and counting. We all still have eternal life, access to God, peace in our hearts, all that stuff is real! We will be at the gathering together; this hope is still there. No offense, but I'm not going to spend the time I have left doubting all that. I'm sorry you were hurt. I agree that what VP did to you and others was f'd up, but he's dead. He can't do that to anyone else and he won't be judged by a manmade court of law. God promises to wipe away all tears from our eyes (Rev 21:4) OK, THERE'S a scripture.

********************************

General: The men I hang with now get together a lot, just the men. Sometimes we drink. None of those guys talks disrespectfully about their wives or women in general. That stuff seems to be off limits.

When it became imminent that Jean and I would marry, I told her I required 2 things. I wanted 3 kids and I thought ABS was VERY important. That's just me; nothing one size fits all about it. Well, we have 3 kids and we still abundantly share and God still blesses us. Take your best shot.

Edited January 19, 2011 by johniam

[Lizzy]

"Was vpw a good man?" No he was not a good man. What he did was evil. Making excuses for him is wrong and evil. He knew better. He knew right from wrong. Shame on you for making excuses for him. BTW you could give me a million examples of evil and that still will not make me think vpw less evil.

[soul searcher]

Well, I won the lottery once---sorta.

I was in a lotto pool at work, with several other people. Our ticket hit for $1,000. We sent the office temp to cash it in at lunch and she never came back.

Ha-ha! (sorry) :)

Did you call the police?

[WordWolf]

Wordwolf:

•Do not talk negatively about a fellow poster in a thread where he or she is not participating or start a new thread to "call out" that person.

Your comments were "buried" in the other thread. I am entitled, in civil discourse,

to refute claims, and to do so in a manner of my choosing, so long as it fits the venue

and is not abusive.

I never addressed YOU- I addressed your assertion.

As you can see, several people found that assertion both illogical and indefensible.

Hey, if you're going to be offended when someone refutes your claims,

don't make them in public and hide from your critics.

(It works for JAL, it worked for vpw...)

Then again, a fondness for creative reinterpretation of things you don't like so that you become

right or the good guy is not a shock by now.

Less than 2 weeks to go; what do you care, right?

I cared enough to set the record straight and do so publickly. You can hardly say I went behind

your back to do anything.

But I will engage you anyway.

Good. This is a discussion board. Let us discuss.

I never called VP a good man.

(smip)

I don't think VP was an evil man. I think he did evil things.

(snip)

I think VP really WAS called of God to teach his word.

(snip)

Technically, you did not- nor did I say you did. You seemed to infer it, and you claimed he was not an

evil man, AND you claimed he was chosen-"called" of God to teach His Word.

We're playing games with Sophistry here- you INSINUATED he was a good man.

I've never called myself a good man. I don't recall that you or any other poster called themselves a good man. Even Jesus didn't like being called a good man (Mark 10:18). Paul wrote that we live in a present evil world (Gal 1:4). Also wrote the good he would he doesn't do, but the evil he wouldn't do that's what he does (Rom 7:19). Who is fit to judge that VP won't get credit for what he did good?

Who said he would or would not?

Nice how you try to excuse vpw for his evil deeds by suggesting that he

was only as evil as everyone else.

I'd respect your statements more if you just came right out and said them rather

than tap-dancing circumlocuitously around what you want to say.

I can respect someone I disagree with, but it's not as easy to do so when someone's

doing their best to say things without actually saying them. Even JAL was more honest

than that with his last advertisement here.

Excathedra: OK, no scripture. I said VP was part of an entire generation of men. This doesn't mean that EVERY man in his generation was like that; just thicker in some places than others. In 1974 I hitched to Maine and back from Michigan where I lived at the time. Twenty four hours after I left I found myself in downtown Montreal, not speaking French and looking like the American white trash hippie freak I was. Got some dirty looks from the locals. Took me 6 hours to walk over the St. Lawrence seaway (2 bridges) and start hitching again.

Got a ride from a guy at least 50. He drove me to the freeway, then drove a mile past the freeway during which time he started masturbating, turned to me and asked me to "help him". I said no. He said you never did this? Oh, you don't know what you're missing. Then he let me out. Next ride was also from a guy at least 50 accompanied by a 12 year old boy. I haven't slept much since leaving MI. He gives me beer, says I can rest up at his place just off the freeway. Turns out to be 20 miles off the freeway down a lot of dirt roads. Foreign country. Foreign language. He said I could sleep in a single bed near the entrance door. Next thing I know the guy's in bed with me feeling on me kissing me. I froze. The 12 year old boy is right in the next room.

My life was never in danger but in my mind I'm freaking out. I jump up and weakly demand that he take me back to the highway. He taunts me, says aren't you afraid someone might rape you? But he takes me back. The next day I'm in Maine having been picked up by a thirty something woman. I didn't tell her what happened the day before; just that I came through Canada. She starts venting about those "damned French Canadian men who just rape everybody". Thicker in some places than others.

The reason I bring this up (I posted about this before) is because I'm certain that neither man who gave me those rides in Quebec thought they did anything ethically wrong. They were fully entitled to take whatever they found. Same generation.

Unquestionably, those were evil deeds. I'd suspect (but would need more evidence to say anything

with any measure of authority) those were evil men who performed evil deeds all the time.

However, you did a disservice to a lot of people when you said

"I think he was part of an entire generation of men who thought women existed for their pleasure."

By saying this, you DID say that that entire generation AS A WHOLE thought like he did and

acted like he did. I wasn't the only one who saw that.

An "entire generation"? This generation of which you speak is part of what for good reason has been called "The Greatest Generation." My parents are of that generation, and of VPs "generation". VP is simply proof that not everyone in that generation was "Great".

However, not everyone of that generation objectified women, cheated on their wives, or slept their way to the top. My Dad and Mom have been faithfully married to each other for over sixty years, raised three good kids, and have four good grandkids and their first great grandchild.

My Dad, unlike VP, served valiantly in WWII, and crawled across Europe on his belly to guarantee the freedom you've enjoyed in your own generation. He has lived an honest life, and gave an honest day's work for an honest day's pay to the same corporation for over thirty years.

So did my Mom. She probably won "employee of the month" for a whole year's worth of months over the span of her service. And she did it honestly without "sleeping her way to the top" or kissing anyone's arse. And for that matter, the same could be said of every one of my aunts and uncles. Not a bad egg in the bunch.

Don't excuse the behavior of one bad person by soiling the entire generation with the same filth.

And BTW you can "notice" and even "appreciate" a young woman without believing you have the right to help yourself to her.

My analogy is not a 100% match, but did VP think he didn't do anything ethically wrong? Or did he do what he thought he could get away with and just didn't care?

vpw certainly KNEW what he was doing was wrong. This is the same man who taught I Corinthians 7:1-2, among other

verses, in the CFS class.

1 Corinthians 7

1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

He taught that the literal of "to touch a woman" was "to help himself to a woman."

Then he turned around and helped himself to woman, and not only pursued fornication, but did his best to

cover his tracks while pursuing fornication. He taught one thing, and then did the opposite.

That leaves "he just didn't care" as the other possibility. He KNEW it was wrong, but devised evil and used

wicked imaginations to construct BEGUILING (paralogizomai, which means more in the Greek than this) rationales

to pretend God said the opposite of what God said, in order to make what he WANTED TO DO sound acceptable

when God was saying "Don't do this."

Either way, of course I think it's horrible, but I can't simply delete something that continues to work for me 34 years and counting. We all still have eternal life, access to God, peace in our hearts, all that stuff is real! We will be at the gathering together; this hope is still there. No offense, but I'm not going to spend the time I have left doubting all that.

See, John, that's the problem right there.

Nobody said (or if someone at some point said it, most of us never even suggested it, there's always one in every crowd

who does differently) that you had to just discard your entire belief system.

I'll say it outright, and keep it simple.

A) I believe there's overwhelming evidence that vpw was a fraud from the day he first stepped behind a pulpit

(and before that.)

B) I believe he was neither the first nor the last person to defraud the Body of Christ, and that's disgraceful

no matter who does it. (Personally, I'd like some severe penalties to apply, but the laws of the US don't permit

castration for rapists, slow deaths or dismemberments for child molesters, etc.)

C) I believe there's overwhelming evidence that vpw found the best work from the best Christians he could find,

then deceived us all by saying is was from him and God and due to some special covenant between them.

D) I believe that in some cases, vpw taught error he copied from other Christians, and often taught some good or

even great stuff he copied from other Christians.

E) I believe it is harmful and false to carry around illusions that any of that was not true, and to elevate vpw

past the level of "charlatan" and into the auspices of "prophet", "apostle", "man of God", "godly teacher",

and so on. If I heard Charles Manson make an insightful comment about Scripture, I'd thank God for the insight,

but I certainly would not seek to join Manson's group.

F) I believe the truths of Scripture stood before vpw was born, and they abide since his death, and vpw has

nothing to do with that. If Scripture contains Truth, then it is good to learn it and try to understand and

apply it when possible.

G) I believe that- no matter who teaches- it's the responsibility of the Bible student to evaluate what was

said and try to identify and remove the errors inserted by the teacher.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (King James Version)

21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (New American Standard Bible)

21But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

So:

A) Read Bible, try to apply it: Good thing.

B) Use the Bible to evaluate everything vpw ever said: good thing.

C) Elevate vpw because he sometimes spoke what the Bible said: bad thing.

D) Believe vpw's groundless claims because he sometimes spoke what the Bible said: bad thing.

E) Believe what the Bible says whether or not vpw agreed with it: good thing.

I don't think I can make my positions any simpler than that.

You've posted some things that elevated vpw past reasonable expectations. I think that's wrong, and I think

that's sad, and I think holding onto those allows vpw to still hold unwarranted power over you decades

after he died (not that he was warranted to hold it over you when alive.)

I'm sorry you were hurt. I agree that what VP did to you and others was f'd up, but he's dead. He can't do that to anyone else and he won't be judged by a manmade court of law. God promises to wipe away all tears from our eyes (Rev 21:4) OK, THERE'S a scripture.

********************************

Personally, I think God's Judgement on vpw will be ugly.

Luke 17:1-2

1Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

2It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

General: The men I hang with now get together a lot, just the men. Sometimes we drink. None of those guys talks disrespectfully about their wives or women in general. That stuff seems to be off limits.

When it became imminent that Jean and I would marry, I told her I required 2 things. I wanted 3 kids and I thought ABS was VERY important. That's just me; nothing one size fits all about it. Well, we have 3 kids and we still abundantly share and God still blesses us. Take your best shot.

Congratulations.

And those are non-issues to this discussion- nobody was trying to make this personal, AFAIK.

(I think ExC is an exception-but under the specific circumstances, your comment WAS "personal" for her

and she was entitled to respond accordingly.

As I see it, everyone (all that I saw) didn't object to your beliefs about the Bible.

They objected to your beliefs about vpw.

[johniam]

Wow. That was a very angry post, WW. You don't like it when anybody questions your 'moral superiority', do you? You haven't said anything outright OR simple; especially concerning the following...

We all still have eternal life, access to God, peace in our hearts, all that stuff is real! We will be at the gathering together; this hope is still there.

That stuff is needful, not your stupid laundry list of VPs sins, or anyone else's. Christ paid for all that. Even for VP. We are the body of Christ. The mystery. Not just a body of people, a body of time as well. Everybody who gets born again from the day of Pentecost until the return is part of the one body and members in particular. We will be rewarded for all the good we've done, both in twi AND here at GSC. That's gospel, good news. You have nothing but bad news, vanity of vanities, hubris, irrelevant. The way you misrepresent people you could make Jesus into the moral equivalent of a serial rapist if you felt like it. I don't know what you do for spiritual nurture and growth these days, but it's always warm in the body of Christ.

One more thing. Excathedra can answer my post which is addressed to her all by herself if she feels like it. There was no anger in what I said to her. Give her some space.

[Ham]

that's twice I see a reference to anger here. First, angry people.. then an angry post..

personally, I didn't read any anger in either case..

[So_crates]

Guys, guys...Lets all chill.

A musical interlude....Dance spaz suit dude!

If that didn't put some twinkle back in the ol' twenty-twenties, not much will.

Thank you JavaJane

SoCrates

Edited January 20, 2011 by So_crates

[brainfixed]

First, Grateful Dead lyrics are not scripture. Like scripture, however, they can pop up and attach themselves to our thoughts for our consideration. Then we decide how much relevance they have. "His job is to shed light, not to master" is the last line (summary and conclusion??? :) of the 'Lady with a fan' part of Terrapin station. Not a 100% match to scripture. I think pfal has a TON of light in it!

I don't think VP was an evil man. I think he did evil things. I think he was part of an entire generation of men who thought women existed for their pleasure. Lot of men who were bosses who hired secretaries for something other than just stenography. Did Esther sleep her way to the top? Some would think so. I think VP really WAS called of God to teach his word. Around age 50 his farm began to host many young women at a time. He's not supposed to notice?

Interestingly, Robert Hunter, Jerry Garcia's lyricist, describes one productive songwriting day as "one great, glowing apocatastasis". He wrote lyrics to 3 Dead songs, all keepers, in one day. You might remember VP using the greek word hypokatastasis as the third degree of figures of speech which cause change (similie, metaphor, and hypocatastasis). Apocatastasis is in an English dictionary. It means 1)a restoring, and 2)a planet returning to a particular point in its orbit. Not sure which one he meant; guessing the 2nd.

I think pfal has a ton of light in it. Willing to let God take care of VP, however it plays out.

but take out the middle part.

First, Grateful Dead lyrics are not scripture. Like scripture, however, they can pop up and attach themselves to our thoughts for our consideration. Then we decide how much relevance they have. "His job is to shed light, not to master" is the last line (summary and conclusion??? :) of the 'Lady with a fan' part of Terrapin station. Not a 100% match to scripture. I think pfal has a TON of light in it!

Interestingly, Robert Hunter, Jerry Garcia's lyricist, describes one productive songwriting day as "one great, glowing apocatastasis". He wrote lyrics to 3 Dead songs, all keepers, in one day. You might remember VP using the greek word hypokatastasis as the third degree of figures of speech which cause change (similie, metaphor, and hypocatastasis). Apocatastasis is in an English dictionary. It means 1)a restoring, and 2)a planet returning to a particular point in its orbit. Not sure which one he meant; guessing the 2nd.

I think pfal has a ton of light in it. Willing to let God take care of VP, however it plays out.

that middle part just sneaks in there and changes everything but it's real intent is not easily recognizable because it's sandwiched between what could be considered "knowledge" and "normal conversation", which is exactly how things got over in the way international. most people would consider getting to know someone that had written the above things without the middle part, but add that stinky middle part and oh boy! most people would keep their wives and daughters behind well protected lines around such people that would say that middle part. "slick talkers, evil walkers" is how i've heard someone describe such things as what were written "in the original".

and let me remind people that vp's lust and the lust he built into his monster machine was not directed to grown women only, but a whole hellofalot of children too. that's pure evil.

[skyrider]

Wow. That was a very angry post, WW. You don't like it when anybody questions your 'moral superiority', do you?

johniam.....this is a discussion forum and wordwolf, respectfully, refuted your points in a thoughtful manner. Yet, you are making this personal.

I do not see ww's post as 'very angry'....nor this 'moral superiority' that you reference. Personal attacks often indicate that one is unable to refute the evidence presented and resorts to attacking the individual.

Also, broad generalizations...ie an entire generation....will get you nowhere on this GS site. GS posters have seen that broad brush tactic plenty of times to let it slip by....especially when it denigrates and slanders.

[TrustAndObey]

encore encore... I demand an encore!

Edited: Oh, I thought we were still on break... DOh.. Sorry.. Carry on..

Edited January 20, 2011 by TrustAndObey

[geisha779]

Wow, a thread where I am not the one in heated argument. Can't let that stand.

johniam,

You have mentioned the good you learned in TWI......but, I have to ask if you really have a respect for the scriptures? If you do, let them speak to you about what kind of man VP was......does Jesus say you can fleece the flock and face no judgment?

If you think that these posts are angry.......you might not actually want to pick up the bible and look......the language used to describe VP and men like him who creep in and become blind guides is wrathful language littered with the severest judgment. It is final judgment reserved for God alone.

We(Christians), on the other hand......are to leave them alone and be thankful for God's promise of judgment. Even in our worst wrathful state (Which no one here has displayed) we are not coming close to it.

The thing about the wheat and the tares is.....they grow together and they are not all going to be discerned until harvest time. Sometimes they are really difficult to distinguish.

VP isn't all that difficult to distinguish with a little hindsight. Very bad man. Not going to be holding hands at the return IMO.

Edited January 20, 2011 by geisha779

[johniam]

quote: johniam.....this is a discussion forum and wordwolf, respectfully, refuted your points in a thoughtful manner. Yet, you are making this personal.

I do not see ww's post as 'very angry'....nor this 'moral superiority' that you reference

*******************************

WW did exactly what I said he did; he called me out. Rationalize it all the way to Pluto and back if you must. If you don't see the anger and moral superiority, then you don't want to.

[JavaJane]

Thank you JavaJane

SoCrates

No problemo. That's what I'm here for. ;)

[johniam]

I'm glad VP in pfal brought up the point about Adam and Eve's children who did they marry. About 20 years ago I went to the house of one of my HS friends. His sister was there and when she found out I was Christian she asked me who Adam and Eve's children married. She tried to sound as discreet and unassuming as she could, but I knew she was just trying to make me squirm. Typical behavior of today's college educated religion bigots; anything to belittle God's word. She figured I would never say they married their siblings cause that would be incest, gasp!

I calmly told her they married their siblings, that there was no one else around and that incest wasn't a biblical issue until 2000 years later when a man named Lot was incestually raped by each of his 2 daughters. Then she flashed the too much information look so I stopped and boy did they change the subject in record time. But it got me thinking.

God is the one who put the appetite for sexual desire in all of us from creation. Abraham and Sarah were half brother and half sister. Issac and Rebecca were 1st cousins, ditto Jacob and his wives, Leah and Rachel. Amram, Moses' father married his own aunt. But now in the enlightened age we have all these rules. Not one person EVER who lived to be an adolescent has not had desire for someone they couldn't possibly have an open relationship with.

Our culture allows for homosexual relationships, which God condemns. If an older woman wants sex with a younger man she's called a 'cougar' and the spin is always yippee, it's a cougar, aren't they great? But if a man wants sex with younger women, then he's a lecher, a pervert, a dirty old man.

A 46 year old middle school math teacher recently confessed to 11 counts of statutory sodomy at my kids' middle school. She would tell 12 and 13 year old boys that they needed to come with her to a building owned by the school district but abandoned. She'd drive them there and do oral sex on them. She didn't get ratted out by any of the boys; she said something in passing to another teacher who suspected something and started asking questions and one thing led to another and she got busted. Never did hear what she was sentenced to. If she'd been a male teacher and did that it'd been all over the media. Nice.

Lot of anger here.

[waysider]

OK, John, I get your point. You simply choose to believe VPW was a good man. My opinion differs from yours greatly. But, no problem. To each his own. I bid you peace.

[krys]

nope IMNSHO

[geisha779]

I'm glad VP in pfal brought up the point about Adam and Eve's children who did they marry. About 20 years ago I went to the house of one of my HS friends. His sister was there and when she found out I was Christian she asked me who Adam and Eve's children married. She tried to sound as discreet and unassuming as she could, but I knew she was just trying to make me squirm. Typical behavior of today's college educated religion bigots; anything to belittle God's word. She figured I would never say they married their siblings cause that would be incest, gasp!

I calmly told her they married their siblings, that there was no one else around and that incest wasn't a biblical issue until 2000 years later when a man named Lot was incestually raped by each of his 2 daughters. Then she flashed the too much information look so I stopped and boy did they change the subject in record time. But it got me thinking.

God is the one who put the appetite for sexual desire in all of us from creation. Abraham and Sarah were half brother and half sister. Issac and Rebecca were 1st cousins, ditto Jacob and his wives, Leah and Rachel. Amram, Moses' father married his own aunt. But now in the enlightened age we have all these rules. Not one person EVER who lived to be an adolescent has not had desire for someone they couldn't possibly have an open relationship with.

Our culture allows for homosexual relationships, which God condemns. If an older woman wants sex with a younger man she's called a 'cougar' and the spin is always yippee, it's a cougar, aren't they great? But if a man wants sex with younger women, then he's a lecher, a pervert, a dirty old man.

A 46 year old middle school math teacher recently confessed to 11 counts of statutory sodomy at my kids' middle school. She would tell 12 and 13 year old boys that they needed to come with her to a building owned by the school district but abandoned. She'd drive them there and do oral sex on them. She didn't get ratted out by any of the boys; she said something in passing to another teacher who suspected something and started asking questions and one thing led to another and she got busted. Never did hear what she was sentenced to. If she'd been a male teacher and did that it'd been all over the media. Nice.

Lot of anger here.

Ewww!

Are you trying to pin VP's adulterous and perverted sexual appetite on God? Wow ....... talk about rationalizing.

[johniam]

OK, John, I get your point. You simply choose to believe VPW was a good man. My opinion differs from yours greatly. But, no problem. To each his own. I bid you peace.

No. I've said that VP did good things, not that he was a good man. There's a difference. Nobody is a good man. In our culture sometimes people are called a good person in a specific context if they have a track record of being trustworthy, but we all have the same sin nature we got from Adam. That's why we die; that's why God had to send Jesus.

quote: If I heard Charles Manson make an insightful comment about Scripture, I'd thank God for the insight,

but I certainly would not seek to join Manson's group.

Well, I have to admit that I have not once hitched in Canada since that day in '74. Canada struck me as a cleaner country than the US physically, but I have no plans to go back there.

quote: F) I believe the truths of Scripture stood before vpw was born, and they abide since his death, and vpw has

nothing to do with that. If Scripture contains Truth, then it is good to learn it and try to understand and

apply it when possible.

The truths of scripture stood before Paul was born; before Martin Luther was born, but their ministries didn't teach ME the word of God, VPs did. I have a friend who was very close to suicide, but he asked God to help him. Few days later he was witnessed to by wows in a bar. The Catholic church didn't send those wows. Alcoholics anonymous didn't send those wows. The NOW didn't send those wows. The gay and lesbian assoc of St. Louis didn't send them. The Christian church still condemns witnessing in bars. Well, so do the 'no solicitation' signs, heh heh. But that's how he got his deliverance. Wows sent by VP. Good man? Not always. Did good things? Yes.

quote: You've posted some things that elevated vpw past reasonable expectations. I think that's wrong, and I think

that's sad, and I think holding onto those allows vpw to still hold unwarranted power over you decades

after he died (not that he was warranted to hold it over you when alive.)

That IS moral superiority. He's telling me what I can and can't value. He started this thread to 'call me out' which the rules forbid. Well, here I am.

[johniam]

I wasn't even going to mention this, but recently I became angry about something traceable to GSC. A believer friend of mine has been divorced now for 4 years or so. This guy attends a fellowship run by a man who was a corps coordinator at a root location back in the day. That man was accused several years ago here of being a pedophile. Two different posters did it.

I got on there, said my then 11 year old daughter had been at one of his family camps and said nothing even remotely suggested this was going on, then I said that the guy lived right across the river from me and that was a serious thing to lightly accuse someone of. One of the 2 posters then admitted it was hearsay. The other one did as well, but believed it anyway trusting who told her about it. The divorced man's ex wife used to post here regularly. What does 2 & 2 equal?

I haven't had the nerve to ask either of the men about this, but they probably know. The ex wife had to have read about the accusation, confronted her husband, didn't get the response she wanted and now they're divorced. Nice. The words of a talebearer are as wounds.

Collateral damage? Sure, everybody is somebody's collateral damage. The first time an older sibling bossed you around. Or a younger sibling got you blamed for something they did. We've all been collateral damage. But I got to be fair. I posted yesterday that I believe we will be rewarded for the good we've done, both in twi and at GSC. What rewards could come from Here? How about words fitly spoken. How many times has that happened? A merry heart does good like a medicine. How many times has one of us injected 10ccs of merry heart into many posters at the same time? Probably in the thousands. Lot of anger here, but a lot of good as well.

[Broken Arrow]

God is the one who put the appetite for sexual desire in all of us from creation. Abraham and Sarah were half brother and half sister. Issac and Rebecca were 1st cousins, ditto Jacob and his wives, Leah and Rachel. Amram, Moses' father married his own aunt. But now in the enlightened age we have all these rules. Not one person EVER who lived to be an adolescent has not had desire for someone they couldn't possibly have an open relationship with.

I must admit I'm a bit unclear as to your point with this statement, so I won't guess.

If an older woman wants sex with a younger man she's called a 'cougar' and the spin is always yippee, it's a cougar, aren't they great? But if a man wants sex with younger women, then he's a lecher, a pervert, a dirty old man.

That's true. This likewise causes psychological and emotional damage to the younger (child) man. Yet it's often difficult for a man to realize he was, in fact, abused because of this societal misbelief. Something in the former male child's soul remains broken but society tells him he was some sort of sex conqueror even at a young age, and that he should be proud. Men that have been so treated as youths often grow up with broken sexual issues such as womanizing or otherwise viewing women as sexual objects, homosexuality, or being otherwise abusive. The belief that it's somehow good and affirming for a young man (child) to be sexually involved with an adult woman is absolutely false. The adult woman should be held just as accountable as a man in such cases. By the way, I never heard the word "cougar" to describe the type of female you mentioned.

A 46 year old middle school math teacher recently confessed to 11 counts of statutory sodomy at my kids' middle school. She would tell 12 and 13 year old boys that they needed to come with her to a building owned by the school district but abandoned. She'd drive them there and do oral sex on them. She didn't get ratted out by any of the boys; she said something in passing to another teacher who suspected something and started asking questions and one thing led to another and she got busted. Never did hear what she was sentenced to. If she'd been a male teacher and did that it'd been all over the media. Nice.

The actions of the teacher are deplorable, absolutely deplorable, This female teacher should be held as accountable as man who would have done this. She is in a position of trust and she betrayed that trust on several levels and she therefore should be punished. One might think the boys weren't telling because they enjoyed it. Maybe some did, but in most cases with abuse the victims are often afraid to come forward. Let me assure you, the boys were victims regardless of how society sees it. Deep emotional damage was incurred all to satisfy this adult's sexual cravings. Her actions are every bit as deplorable as Wierwille's. Whether or not the media or society as a whole sees it that way has little bearing on the seriousness of this crime. It is rape.

Lot of anger here.

"Lot of anger here". You continue to say this. Again, I don't want to guess at what I think your point is.

You are also correct when you say that anyone who reaches adolesence has had sexual desire for someone for whom they cannot have an open relationship. That is not the point, though. While we may possess this desire at times, not everyone, even most people, act on these desires. That is, to force, coerce, or seduce someone else to participate with us in our fantasies.

To garner someone's trust and have authority over them, and then use that trust and authority to manipulate them to do one's own bidding, even if the victim is willfully participating in the manipulation, is an offense of the highest degree. Nowhere does this offense play out worse than in sexual exploitation, especially if the victim is a child.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Broken Arrow

[cman]

who says Adam and Eve and their children were the only humans around

in THAT first century

an assumption at best

the secrets of Genesis remain

hidden in plain sight

Edited January 20, 2011 by cman