Wow, a lot of anger in your post. The word is "misandry". From there you should find the derivations. Look it up again in your Webster's and Oxford, do a word search on the Internet, look it up in "Dictionary.com", look it up in Wikipedia. It's not a made up word.
This is weird. Since I was in college I've complained (not too seriously) that only misogyny and misanthropy were in my dictionary, and I thought that something like misandry should be allowed. So maybe I sometimes make sense. Saying "feminism" means hatred of men does not.
PS My mother had an oval influence on me - I've been waiting for a chance to say that in public. Is that allowed? I can't say she had the other kind.
I find it interesting that Jack LaLanne (b. 9/26/14) was over two years older than vpw (12/31/16). Vpw looked the more decrepit than Jack , in the photos of 'ol vic taken over 25 years ago. R.i.p. Jack!
Edit: sorry, couldn't attach the comparison pic of Lalanne, like I intended.
I hope those photos were over 25 years ago. If they weren't he'd have to have been exhumed.
quote: This is weird. Since I was in college I've complained (not too seriously) that only misogyny and misanthropy were in my dictionary, and I thought that something like misandry should be allowed. So maybe I sometimes make sense. Saying "feminism" means hatred of men does not.
It's like black racism. Everybody knows it's there, but we're not supposed to bring it up. The media sure won't. Saying that feminism equals hatred of men is like those bumper stickers anti abortion people used to have that said "legalize life". Life is literally quite legal and there are feminists who don't literally hate men. Hyperbole, perhaps?
I don't believe that women are inferior to men by creation. I just think today's culture, at least in the USA, has more impactive double standards that favor women and penalize men. The only double standard that still penalizes women is the time honored one in which if a man goes out and screws around, he's a "stud", he's "sewing wild oats", but if a woman does it, she's a "slut". That IS an unfair double standard; if it's wrong for women to do it, then it should also be wrong for men to do it, but THAT double standard applies to people who are between relationships. The double standards that penalize men are capable of sabotaging existing relationships.
For example, if a woman disagrees with a man, she's "assertive", but if a man disagrees with a woman, he's being "prideful". If a woman complains about a man's behavior, she is again "assertive", but if a man complains about a woman's behavior, he's a "wuss", needs a "thicker skin". If a woman is confrontational to a man, she is again "assertive", but if a man is confrontational to a woman, he's now a "bully". At least us men are versatile. Plus, every TV show drama, whether it's a cop show, lawyer show, or hospital show, whatever it is, the women are always the voices of reason. There's always a key scene where a woman coerces the male lead character into doing something against his better judgement, and somehow she's ALWAYS right. That's BS. And a lot of men apparently buy into this crap.
I know full well that 50 years ago it was the other way around. There really were a lot of men who thought they should have full access sexually to any woman who caught their eye. Much hurt happened because of this. The main reason it's not that way now is because enough women had the guts to speak up. That's what it's going to take for men to overcome things like unfair bias in divorce/custody/family court type stuff.
I just think today's culture, at least in the USA, has more impactive double standards that favor women and penalize men. The only double standard that still penalizes women is the time honored one in which if a man goes out and screws around, he's a "stud", he's "sewing wild oats", but if a woman does it, she's a "slut". That IS an unfair double standard; if it's wrong for women to do it, then it should also be wrong for men to do it...
The same holds true in issues of abuse. If a boy is sexually abused by an older woman it is just as ghastly as if a girl is abused by an older man, even though the latter is more common.
but THAT double standard applies to people who are between relationships. The double standards that penalize men are capable of sabotaging existing relationships.
For example, if a woman disagrees with a man, she's "assertive", but if a man disagrees with a woman, he's being "prideful". If a woman complains about a man's behavior, she is again "assertive", but if a man complains about a woman's behavior, he's a "wuss", needs a "thicker skin". If a woman is confrontational to a man, she is again "assertive", but if a man is confrontational to a woman, he's now a "bully". At least us men are versatile.
I see it differently. In the cases you mentioned the woman is stereotypically considered a "bitch", even by the other women while a man is considered a strong leader.Plus, every TV show drama, whether it's a cop show, lawyer show, or hospital show, whatever it is, the women are always the voices of reason. There's always a key scene where a woman coerces the male lead character into doing something against his better judgement, and somehow she's ALWAYS right. That's BS. And a lot of men apparently buy into this crap.
On this point I fully agree. I would only point out that you forgot Disney movies where a father is either out of touch, weak, or absent.
I know full well that 50 years ago it was the other way around. There really were a lot of men who thought they should have full access sexually to any woman who caught their eye. Much hurt happened because of this. The main reason it's not that way now is because enough women had the guts to speak up. That's what it's going to take for men to overcome things like unfair bias in divorce/custody/family court type stuff.
Well, there are still a lot of men in positions of power who feel that way. I don't think the unfair bias against men exists in the courts like it used to. In the 60's or 70's, there was no way a man would ever get custody of the children except in very rare instances. The movie Kramer vs. Kramer addressed that issue.
I thought the initial post in this thread was excellent. Well thought out, well presented, thought provoking, and especially interesting for those who may still have questions about good vs evil concerning VP.
It is an opportunity to examine what he actually did as opposed to what some believe he taught (truth).
There is a word for someone who preaches one thing and does another......and it is not misandry ....it is hypocrisy.
I thought the initial post in this thread was excellent. Well thought out, well presented, thought provoking, and especially interesting for those who may still have questions about good vs evil concerning VP.
It is an opportunity to examine what he actually did as opposed to what some believe he taught (truth).
There is a word for someone who preaches one thing and does another......and it is not misandry ....it is hypocrisy.
Seems the topic has a life of its own.
I agree with all you wrote.
"Seems the topic has a life of its own."
Sometimes when someone can't defend and prove what they stated they move the topic to one they believe they can debate better. I believe that is what has happened here.
Sometimes when someone can't defend and prove what they stated they move the topic to one they believe they can debate better. I believe that is what has happened here.
In logic circles its known as Distraction or Red Herring.
"I know full well that 50 years ago it was the other way around. There really were a lot of men who thought they should have full access sexually to any woman who caught their eye."
It's all about context, johniam.
The influence of the times and the culture of an era are one thing but we all know full well that The Way was purposefully redefining a culture based on a biblical premise and foundation. That's what everyone understood -
-Casting aside "worldly" and religious traditions to favor an "accurate" understanding of what the bible stated regarding any and all aspects of life.
-Putting it into practice in a family oriented, home based context where the culture would flourish.
Think about it - the bible was supposed to be the source of direction and guidance and the source material for moral and ethical applications. VPW spent a great deal of time dealing with these very moral and ethical applications too, through meetings and informal settings.
In a world of one's own making - The Way Nash - there aren't the constraints of society, there's no obligation to maintain a current mindset, like the one you're describing of "50 years ago". Whether that's true or not isn't really the issue - the issue is, whatever the cultural attitude of VPW towards women, it was one of his own making, choice and decision.
He'd broken away from many of the traditional theological moorings of the times. If not the one you describe - you'd have to ask why? When he'd seemingly sacrificed so much by a refusal to toe the church-party line, well....
The answer's pretty obvious, I think.
The real sidebar to this topic is if VPW had a specific understanding of male/female relationships from the bible that he used as a basic for his lifestyle. There's quite a few people today who say he did and that his moral and ethical development reflected that. The problem with documenting it is that in all the cases of the MEN involved that I know of - yes, those poor bashed menses - have never taken the opportunity to be really honest in their public discourse about their own path, what they were told, when, by whom, how they absorbed it and what they did specifically with it over the years they were in the Way.
ODD ISN'T it - that the women involved have been the most open, often at personal expense yet THE MEN who were involved on the other side of the coin - kinda quiet.
Maybe if there was an equal amount of honesty there'd be less bashing.
I always get a kick when anyone complains about these kinds of discussions as being moral based and travesties - VPW's entire history on this topic was a moral one of his own making. In order to discuss it and evaluate it "moral" ground HAS to be covered. I don't shy away from that arena at all - it's a trick and a ruse to steer away from it as if it makes one some sort of self-righteous do-gooder with their nose in the air. Ain't that way in the real world, at all.
I'd also agree with you geisha - this entire slice of this thread is really a non-issue. It doesn't explain anything or shed light. It's really a completely separate issue.
Male/female bashing, inequities, unfair practices and general bad behavior - someone's always about to "clock" someone else and it's no surprise that it's often a man with a size and weight advantage over a woman.
Frankly, I love to see and read when a woman with some dik head guy who's been whacking her for years trying to get 'er to get his beer faster turns around one day and flips that 2X4 back on him, shoves the beer can down his throat and walks out with her stuff.
Going back to the original subject posited. was VP good or evil...
I am going to base this on my own experience with an abusive step father and say he was not all bad but not all good.
I survived abuse but just barely. The emotional toll that abuse of any kind (verbal, sexual , or emotionsl) imposes on a person no matter male or female is very high. Every survivor of abuse suffers from depression to some degree more or less depending upon your personality, you also will have issues with self respect, and self confidence. your ability to have close personal relationships is marginal at best. When i say this I do not mean you can not have friendships... I mean if you get married or have a couples relationship of any kind you will have difficulty in sharing your emotions and feelings with your significant other. Your relationships with your children are strained and you find it difficult to treat them respectively of their age(expect too much or too little of them)
I know that part of my coming to terms with the abuse i endured growing up involved learning to understand the whys of my Step fathers abuse. But understanding my step father brought me to the conclusion that he was not a good man... he had some good qualities and he did some nice things once in a while, But when I weigh it against all the hurt and bad that he did he comes up lacking.
When i look at VP and all the hurt and pain he caused in light of his claim to be trying to bring people to a fuller knowledge of the word of God... i find him lacking in the good department.
If i judge him by that I find that the good he did is so far outweiged by the bad that he is a BAD man... Was there instances of good... yes, but do those negate the bad... no. Not in this case.
I understand that there was a cultural norm of dismissing what women thought and said but that is not what VP's abuse was about at all. VP chose to twist the bible teacings in order to justify his decisions to do wrong. He hid behind the notion that he was spiritually superior and because of that he could break rules and do what he wanted to do... but if he was superior as he claimed then he would have realised how much his actions hurt those women and that he was actually acting with evil intent.
I also want to add that abuse, any kind of abuse is always about being in control and manipulating someone to do what you want. Abuse is about controling and destroying the other person... In light of all this, no VP was not a good man.
And Morals are societies rules to make living together work.
ODD ISN'T it - that the women involved have been the most open, often at personal expense yet THE MEN who were involved on the other side of the coin - kinda quiet.
Wow, socksness, you said a mouthful. I believe (based on personal observation) that some of these men aren't opening their yaps because because they still buy into the "all the women of the kingdom belong to the king" BS, and they still think they're in the king category. I suspect some others have realized by now how wrong their behavior was and are simply too ashamed to own up to it.
But back to VP. For all the show he made of adhering to "the Word, the Word, and nothing but the Word," he had no problem disregarding or rationalizing away verses that would have interfered with his un-MOG-ly activities.
So...good or evil? I saw him do good sometimes, but I know from reliable witnesses he also did evil. Therefore, I'd say he was a man who sometimes did good and sometimes did evil. The sad thing is that he used people's trust in him as a minister to do the latter.
God's accounting system is way better than mine could ever be. I trust He'll sort it all out in the end, and I have a feeling somebody's going to have some 'splainin' to do.
pretty much my opinion of him is based on how he treated me
i went to him with a stupid honest open heart -- looked at him kind of like the pope -- had no other basis of comparison. also had the screwy father figure issue going on
and you know the rest of the old boring story
was he good? damn, i know he was good at times
i also know he was a fwad who took advantage of young hopeful searching women girls whatev
you're just not supposed to do that. nobody should do it least of all a MOG
he was lucky. he got off easy. when some of these shrinks, camp counselors, school teachers, etc., get before a judge -- they don't ask about what good they've done. well, i'm sure lots of people come on as character witnesses, but when it gets right down to it, what happened ? that's what the judge wants to know, right?
he never had to face that. too bad
--
hi my friend linzee
i actually said "well said" to leafy but then your post was there when i was done
Wow, socksness, you said a mouthful. I believe (based on personal observation) that some of these men aren't opening their yaps because because they still buy into the "all the women of the kingdom belong to the king" BS, and they still think they're in the king category. I suspect some others have realized by now how wrong their behavior was and are simply too ashamed to own up to it.
But back to VP. For all the show he made of adhering to "the Word, the Word, and nothing but the Word," he had no problem disregarding or rationalizing away verses that would have interfered with his un-MOG-ly activities.
So...good or evil? I saw him do good sometimes, but I know from reliable witnesses he also did evil. Therefore, I'd say he was a man who sometimes did good and sometimes did evil. The sad thing is that he used people's trust in him as a minister to do the latter.
God's accounting system is way better than mine could ever be. I trust He'll sort it all out in the end, and I have a feeling somebody's going to have some 'splainin' to do.
From my observations....not only do these men "buy into the wierwille bs," many have structured offshoots and networks that continue to keep hirelings over the flock. Along with a livelihood, or supplemental supply.......the fleecing continues.
When I left twi.....for awhile, I thought that its demise was martindale's fault, a majority of it, for sure. Yet, after a couple of months on Waydale.....it became clear to me that wierwille was a wolf in sheeps' clothing. Everything in his life was soiled with the works of the flesh.........lazy, bully, arrogant, braggart, con artist, plagairist, drunkard, sexual predator, etc,.....the man should have served prison time.
Everything in his life was soiled with the works of the flesh.........lazy, bully, arrogant, braggart, con artist, plagairist, drunkard, sexual predator, etc
i went to him with a stupid honest open heart -- looked at him kind of like the pope -- had no other basis of comparison. also had the screwy father figure issue going on
and you know the rest of the old boring story
he was lucky. he got off easy.
Please forgive my forwardness, we don't know each other well, but there is nothing "stupid" about your honest open heart, nor is your story "boring". He was the one who was screwed up, I'm sorry you got caught in his crossfire, but it was his issue, not yours. You had every reason to trust who you thought was your pastor. The onus was on him to conduct himself properly. Having failed that, the responsibility fell to the other adults who were around but they were self serving as well.
Well, I will admit that there is ONE aspect of all this that does bother me. Consent. God is a God of consent. Mary gave consent before she became the mother of the Christ child (Luke 1:38) and Jesus gave consent before he offered himself as sacrifice for our sin (Luke 22:42). Plus didn't we hear ad nauseum that God would NEVER overstep man's free will?
I can excuse someone having desire. Although we have laws in this country regarding under age sex, for good reasons, we know that both males and females are able to cause conception and become pregnant at age 13 or so. I had my first sexual fantasy at age 12. It was about a 12 year old girl in my 7th grade homeroom. Having desire for someone that young is not "perverted". It's criminal if you actively pursue sexual relations, but it's not perverted to simply desire someone who is old enough to either cause conception (male) or get pregnant (female). Younger than that?
There was a regular poster here named Adiosmicorazon. She hasn't posted to my knowledge in years, but reading her posts, one would conclude that she has been an above average attractive female for most of her life. She once made the point that it's OK to call a child 'cute' or 'pretty' (handsome if a male), but not 'sexy'. Those 3 words are the 3 generic words used to describe the appearance of males and females. There are other words used, like 'hot' but they all seem to gravitate back to cute, pretty (handsome), and sexy. Cute and pretty can be adjusted cosmetically, but not sexy. If a male or female is sexy and everybody notices it, they're not sexy because of what they do cosmetically (make up, hair, clothes, etc.), they're sexy because of how they think. Because of what they understand about themselves, their social/cultural environment. We see ads all the time about sexy hair, sexy clothes, and such, but hair and clothes aren't literally sexy, people are, and they communicate it with their eyes and their body language. Young children aren't old enough to have that understanding yet. They can be cute or pretty, but not sexy. A pedophile sees a flash of the adult the child will become, pauses it, enlarges it, fantasizes about it, and acts on the fantasy.
VP has been accused of a lot of things, but not doing young children. Even the 46 year old middle school math teacher didn't do young children, just under age children. I can excuse simple desire, but not violation of consent; not using authority as a teacher/minister to coerce anyone, young or old, into a sexual relationship. That idea DOES bother me. I find it very disturbing.
I have stated that people are angry. People have a right to be angry to an extent. It's OK to be angry at what VP did. It is. But many suns have gone down on the wrath of some of you. All the evil in the universe doesn't negate our hope, which includes no more tears plus all the other good stuff. Don't forget that.
Johniam, your logic defies reason. When someone with real or perceived power exercises or forces their will on someone weaker, it is abuse. I don't care how old they are. This would include police/citizen, boss/employee, teacher/student, pastor/counselee, parent/child and yes, husband/wife.
In addition, you are arbitrarily choosing age of consent. The law says it's 18, you're taking the age down to being able to reproduce offspring. The pedophile does NOT see the adult the child will become, they see the child they want to consume with their own selfish lust. As with any addiction, one is never enough so he went from person to person.
I believe the line is drawn even further back than we're making it here in this thread. ONE sexual encounter outside the bounds of marriage should have constituted his removal from office. The moment he bedded some woman who was not his spouse was the moment he disqualified himself from leadership. Many here may disagree with that, and that's your privilege. I think most if not all will agree with this next statement. Rather than come clean with his behavior, Wierwille engaged in cover-up after cover-up. He called it the "lock box". The real name is deception. Deceptive practices also were a reason for him to be removed from office. MOGFOT? I don't think so.
VP seduced, raped, and drugged girls over 30 years his junior. Some of these girls were as young as 14. Yes, he did young children as did that teacher in your example. Johniam, what are you defending?
Well, I will admit that there is ONE aspect of all this that does bother me. Consent. God is a God of consent. Mary gave consent before she became the mother of the Christ child (Luke 1:38) and Jesus gave consent before he offered himself as sacrifice for our sin (Luke 22:42). Plus didn't we hear ad nauseum that God would NEVER overstep man's free will?
I can excuse someone having desire. Although we have laws in this country regarding under age sex, for good reasons, we know that both males and females are able to cause conception and become pregnant at age 13 or so. I had my first sexual fantasy at age 12. It was about a 12 year old girl in my 7th grade homeroom. Having desire for someone that young is not "perverted". It's criminal if you actively pursue sexual relations, but it's not perverted to simply desire someone who is old enough to either cause conception (male) or get pregnant (female). Younger than that?
There was a regular poster here named Adiosmicorazon. She hasn't posted to my knowledge in years, but reading her posts, one would conclude that she has been an above average attractive female for most of her life. She once made the point that it's OK to call a child 'cute' or 'pretty' (handsome if a male), but not 'sexy'. Those 3 words are the 3 generic words used to describe the appearance of males and females. There are other words used, like 'hot' but they all seem to gravitate back to cute, pretty (handsome), and sexy. Cute and pretty can be adjusted cosmetically, but not sexy. If a male or female is sexy and everybody notices it, they're not sexy because of what they do cosmetically (make up, hair, clothes, etc.), they're sexy because of how they think. Because of what they understand about themselves, their social/cultural environment. We see ads all the time about sexy hair, sexy clothes, and such, but hair and clothes aren't literally sexy, people are, and they communicate it with their eyes and their body language. Young children aren't old enough to have that understanding yet. They can be cute or pretty, but not sexy. A pedophile sees a flash of the adult the child will become, pauses it, enlarges it, fantasizes about it, and acts on the fantasy.
VP has been accused of a lot of things, but not doing young children. Even the 46 year old middle school math teacher didn't do young children, just under age children. I can excuse simple desire, but not violation of consent; not using authority as a teacher/minister to coerce anyone, young or old, into a sexual relationship. That idea DOES bother me. I find it very disturbing.
I have stated that people are angry. People have a right to be angry to an extent. It's OK to be angry at what VP did. It is. But many suns have gone down on the wrath of some of you. All the evil in the universe doesn't negate our hope, which includes no more tears plus all the other good stuff. Don't forget that.
There is something I find so off-putting in the way you discuss sexual issues. I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe it is your terminology? Possibly the idea of "doing" young children.... which to me is abusive language in itself. It avoids the more pertinent reality of molestation with a misplaced vernacular. Maybe it is the seemingly random introduction of pedophilia into the discussion.
It could definitely be this " Having desire for someone that young is not "perverted". It's criminal if you actively pursue sexual relations, but it's not perverted to simply desire someone who is old enough to either cause conception (male) or get pregnant (female). " I find that a disturbing rationalization and untoward statement when discussing a 13 year old CHILD. How old are you now?
It could also be my puritanical New England upbringing......but this discussion seems to be bordering on the edge of not only good taste, but morality. Also, I am curious....what does someone being above average in physical attractiveness have to do with their statements concerning words you can use to describe children? Being pretty does not make one an expert on what is allowable?
I do agree that there have been many suns that have set....which is why I am curious as to your seeming inability to process much of the available information concerning VP's life and actions. I think I am really wondering about the depth of your understanding of who God is and what salvation really means. This arises, in part, from your assumption that people here are born-again.......have a relationship with Jesus.....or have ever really been connected to the vine.
My hope for you is that you really take a fresh look at the sections of scripture related to SIT. There is a wealth of information there concerning the genuine and counterfeit. I bring this up assuming you are relying on that phenomenon we all shared in PFAL to confer spiritual identification on others here.
Well, I will admit that there is ONE aspect of all this that does bother me. Consent. God is a God of consent. Mary gave consent before she became the mother of the Christ child (Luke 1:38) and Jesus gave consent before he offered himself as sacrifice for our sin (Luke 22:42). Plus didn't we hear ad nauseum that God would NEVER overstep man's free will?
remember you wrote this.
I can excuse someone having desire. Although we have laws in this country regarding under age sex, for good reasons, we know that both males and females are able to cause conception and become pregnant at age 13 or so. I had my first sexual fantasy at age 12. It was about a 12 year old girl in my 7th grade homeroom. Having desire for someone that young is not "perverted". It's criminal if you actively pursue sexual relations, but it's not perverted to simply desire someone who is old enough to either cause conception (male) or get pregnant (female). Younger than that?
really? doesn't the bible say that if you think a thing you've done the thing? how it is so convenient to jump from "the word of god" to the laws of man as needed to justify what is normally unjustifiable.
There was a regular poster here named Adiosmicorazon. She hasn't posted to my knowledge in years, but reading her posts, one would conclude that she has been an above average attractive female for most of her life. She once made the point that it's OK to call a child 'cute' or 'pretty' (handsome if a male), but not 'sexy'.
that's good someone said it!
Those 3 words are the 3 generic words used to describe the appearance of males and females. There are other words used, like 'hot' but they all seem to gravitate back to cute, pretty (handsome), and sexy. Cute and pretty can be adjusted cosmetically, but not sexy. If a male or female is sexy and everybody notices it, they're not sexy because of what they do cosmetically (make up, hair, clothes, etc.), they're sexy because of how they think. Because of what they understand about themselves, their social/cultural environment.
this what you write here is very disturbing after what you wrote about about consent and then about having sexual desire for children as young as 12. what 12 year old does "everybody" notice as "sexy"? what 12 year old is "sexy because of how they think. Because of what they understand about themselves, their social/cultural environment."????
We see ads all the time about sexy hair, sexy clothes, and such, but hair and clothes aren't literally sexy, people are, and they communicate it with their eyes and their body language. Young children aren't old enough to have that understanding yet. They can be cute or pretty, but not sexy. A pedophile sees a flash of the adult the child will become, pauses it, enlarges it, fantasizes about it, and acts on the fantasy.
ok, you write that "young children aren't old enough to have that understanding yet.", and you write that "they can be cute or pretty, but not sexy.", and you write that "a pedophile sees a flash of the adult the child will become, pauses it, enlarges it, fantasizes about it, and acts on the fantasy.". you wrote these things after writing "It's criminal if you actively pursue sexual relations, but it's not perverted to simply desire someone who is old enough to either cause conception (male) or get pregnant (female)." again i have to ask what about what the bible says about if you think a thing then you've done the thing?
VP has been accused of a lot of things, but not doing young children.
how old was his daughter that he "taught" about sex?
Even the 46 year old middle school math teacher didn't do young children, just under age children.
really? that's a fine and very blurred line you're walking.
I can excuse simple desire, but not violation of consent; not using authority as a teacher/minister to coerce anyone, young or old, into a sexual relationship. That idea DOES bother me. I find it very disturbing.
but you did excuse it in all the stuff you wrote previously.
I have stated that people are angry. People have a right to be angry to an extent. It's OK to be angry at what VP did. It is. But many suns have gone down on the wrath of some of you. All the evil in the universe doesn't negate our hope, which includes no more tears plus all the other good stuff. Don't forget that.
yeah i've heard this before in this context and it went something like this "just be a good girl and renew your mind because you want to get to heaven don't you?"
you hide very disturbing things in the middle of judgemental and condemning and self-excusing platitudes that you obviously don't even believe but hope are real or otherwise you're in for a rude awakening.
you have very successfully put a finger on what's so "off-putting in the way you discuss sexual issues." (to borrow someone else's words.)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
27
49
45
19
Popular Days
Jan 26
31
Jan 21
29
Jan 30
25
Jan 20
25
Top Posters In This Topic
johniam 27 posts
Ham 49 posts
waysider 45 posts
Broken Arrow 19 posts
Popular Days
Jan 26 2011
31 posts
Jan 21 2011
29 posts
Jan 30 2011
25 posts
Jan 20 2011
25 posts
Popular Posts
Grace Valerie Claire
Well, the last time I checked, I was a woman who joined the Navy!! I love this poster!! Anyhow, to add my few pennies, I think VBW was a sick man!! A few years ago, a woman posted here at the Cafe
waysider
I think the realization they were able to keep so much hidden speaks volumes about just how corrupt and deceptive the whole operation was.
chockfull
"Was vpw a good man?" for God to decide - I don't own the scales of Justice. but you only need to insert one little adjective into that statement to make it one that resounds with a universa
Posted Images
cara
This is weird. Since I was in college I've complained (not too seriously) that only misogyny and misanthropy were in my dictionary, and I thought that something like misandry should be allowed. So maybe I sometimes make sense. Saying "feminism" means hatred of men does not.
PS My mother had an oval influence on me - I've been waiting for a chance to say that in public. Is that allowed? I can't say she had the other kind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Calavicci
I find it interesting that Jack LaLanne (b. 9/26/14) was over two years older than vpw (12/31/16). Vpw looked the more decrepit than Jack , in the photos of 'ol vic taken over 25 years ago. R.i.p. Jack!
Edit: sorry, couldn't attach the comparison pic of Lalanne, like I intended.
Edited by CalavicciLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I hope those photos were over 25 years ago. If they weren't he'd have to have been exhumed.
quote: This is weird. Since I was in college I've complained (not too seriously) that only misogyny and misanthropy were in my dictionary, and I thought that something like misandry should be allowed. So maybe I sometimes make sense. Saying "feminism" means hatred of men does not.
It's like black racism. Everybody knows it's there, but we're not supposed to bring it up. The media sure won't. Saying that feminism equals hatred of men is like those bumper stickers anti abortion people used to have that said "legalize life". Life is literally quite legal and there are feminists who don't literally hate men. Hyperbole, perhaps?
I don't believe that women are inferior to men by creation. I just think today's culture, at least in the USA, has more impactive double standards that favor women and penalize men. The only double standard that still penalizes women is the time honored one in which if a man goes out and screws around, he's a "stud", he's "sewing wild oats", but if a woman does it, she's a "slut". That IS an unfair double standard; if it's wrong for women to do it, then it should also be wrong for men to do it, but THAT double standard applies to people who are between relationships. The double standards that penalize men are capable of sabotaging existing relationships.
For example, if a woman disagrees with a man, she's "assertive", but if a man disagrees with a woman, he's being "prideful". If a woman complains about a man's behavior, she is again "assertive", but if a man complains about a woman's behavior, he's a "wuss", needs a "thicker skin". If a woman is confrontational to a man, she is again "assertive", but if a man is confrontational to a woman, he's now a "bully". At least us men are versatile. Plus, every TV show drama, whether it's a cop show, lawyer show, or hospital show, whatever it is, the women are always the voices of reason. There's always a key scene where a woman coerces the male lead character into doing something against his better judgement, and somehow she's ALWAYS right. That's BS. And a lot of men apparently buy into this crap.
I know full well that 50 years ago it was the other way around. There really were a lot of men who thought they should have full access sexually to any woman who caught their eye. Much hurt happened because of this. The main reason it's not that way now is because enough women had the guts to speak up. That's what it's going to take for men to overcome things like unfair bias in divorce/custody/family court type stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I thought the initial post in this thread was excellent. Well thought out, well presented, thought provoking, and especially interesting for those who may still have questions about good vs evil concerning VP.
It is an opportunity to examine what he actually did as opposed to what some believe he taught (truth).
There is a word for someone who preaches one thing and does another......and it is not misandry ....it is hypocrisy.
Seems the topic has a life of its own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lizzy
I agree with all you wrote.
"Seems the topic has a life of its own."
Sometimes when someone can't defend and prove what they stated they move the topic to one they believe they can debate better. I believe that is what has happened here.
Edited by LizzyLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
In logic circles its known as Distraction or Red Herring.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
"I know full well that 50 years ago it was the other way around. There really were a lot of men who thought they should have full access sexually to any woman who caught their eye."
It's all about context, johniam.
The influence of the times and the culture of an era are one thing but we all know full well that The Way was purposefully redefining a culture based on a biblical premise and foundation. That's what everyone understood -
-Casting aside "worldly" and religious traditions to favor an "accurate" understanding of what the bible stated regarding any and all aspects of life.
-Putting it into practice in a family oriented, home based context where the culture would flourish.
Think about it - the bible was supposed to be the source of direction and guidance and the source material for moral and ethical applications. VPW spent a great deal of time dealing with these very moral and ethical applications too, through meetings and informal settings.
In a world of one's own making - The Way Nash - there aren't the constraints of society, there's no obligation to maintain a current mindset, like the one you're describing of "50 years ago". Whether that's true or not isn't really the issue - the issue is, whatever the cultural attitude of VPW towards women, it was one of his own making, choice and decision.
He'd broken away from many of the traditional theological moorings of the times. If not the one you describe - you'd have to ask why? When he'd seemingly sacrificed so much by a refusal to toe the church-party line, well....
The answer's pretty obvious, I think.
The real sidebar to this topic is if VPW had a specific understanding of male/female relationships from the bible that he used as a basic for his lifestyle. There's quite a few people today who say he did and that his moral and ethical development reflected that. The problem with documenting it is that in all the cases of the MEN involved that I know of - yes, those poor bashed menses - have never taken the opportunity to be really honest in their public discourse about their own path, what they were told, when, by whom, how they absorbed it and what they did specifically with it over the years they were in the Way.
ODD ISN'T it - that the women involved have been the most open, often at personal expense yet THE MEN who were involved on the other side of the coin - kinda quiet.
Maybe if there was an equal amount of honesty there'd be less bashing.
I always get a kick when anyone complains about these kinds of discussions as being moral based and travesties - VPW's entire history on this topic was a moral one of his own making. In order to discuss it and evaluate it "moral" ground HAS to be covered. I don't shy away from that arena at all - it's a trick and a ruse to steer away from it as if it makes one some sort of self-righteous do-gooder with their nose in the air. Ain't that way in the real world, at all.
I'd also agree with you geisha - this entire slice of this thread is really a non-issue. It doesn't explain anything or shed light. It's really a completely separate issue.
Male/female bashing, inequities, unfair practices and general bad behavior - someone's always about to "clock" someone else and it's no surprise that it's often a man with a size and weight advantage over a woman.
Frankly, I love to see and read when a woman with some dik head guy who's been whacking her for years trying to get 'er to get his beer faster turns around one day and flips that 2X4 back on him, shoves the beer can down his throat and walks out with her stuff.
How's that for a bias?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
Going back to the original subject posited. was VP good or evil...
I am going to base this on my own experience with an abusive step father and say he was not all bad but not all good.
I survived abuse but just barely. The emotional toll that abuse of any kind (verbal, sexual , or emotionsl) imposes on a person no matter male or female is very high. Every survivor of abuse suffers from depression to some degree more or less depending upon your personality, you also will have issues with self respect, and self confidence. your ability to have close personal relationships is marginal at best. When i say this I do not mean you can not have friendships... I mean if you get married or have a couples relationship of any kind you will have difficulty in sharing your emotions and feelings with your significant other. Your relationships with your children are strained and you find it difficult to treat them respectively of their age(expect too much or too little of them)
I know that part of my coming to terms with the abuse i endured growing up involved learning to understand the whys of my Step fathers abuse. But understanding my step father brought me to the conclusion that he was not a good man... he had some good qualities and he did some nice things once in a while, But when I weigh it against all the hurt and bad that he did he comes up lacking.
When i look at VP and all the hurt and pain he caused in light of his claim to be trying to bring people to a fuller knowledge of the word of God... i find him lacking in the good department.
If i judge him by that I find that the good he did is so far outweiged by the bad that he is a BAD man... Was there instances of good... yes, but do those negate the bad... no. Not in this case.
I understand that there was a cultural norm of dismissing what women thought and said but that is not what VP's abuse was about at all. VP chose to twist the bible teacings in order to justify his decisions to do wrong. He hid behind the notion that he was spiritually superior and because of that he could break rules and do what he wanted to do... but if he was superior as he claimed then he would have realised how much his actions hurt those women and that he was actually acting with evil intent.
I also want to add that abuse, any kind of abuse is always about being in control and manipulating someone to do what you want. Abuse is about controling and destroying the other person... In light of all this, no VP was not a good man.
And Morals are societies rules to make living together work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Socks said:
Wow, socksness, you said a mouthful. I believe (based on personal observation) that some of these men aren't opening their yaps because because they still buy into the "all the women of the kingdom belong to the king" BS, and they still think they're in the king category. I suspect some others have realized by now how wrong their behavior was and are simply too ashamed to own up to it.
But back to VP. For all the show he made of adhering to "the Word, the Word, and nothing but the Word," he had no problem disregarding or rationalizing away verses that would have interfered with his un-MOG-ly activities.
So...good or evil? I saw him do good sometimes, but I know from reliable witnesses he also did evil. Therefore, I'd say he was a man who sometimes did good and sometimes did evil. The sad thing is that he used people's trust in him as a minister to do the latter.
God's accounting system is way better than mine could ever be. I trust He'll sort it all out in the end, and I have a feeling somebody's going to have some 'splainin' to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
well said
pretty much my opinion of him is based on how he treated me
i went to him with a stupid honest open heart -- looked at him kind of like the pope -- had no other basis of comparison. also had the screwy father figure issue going on
and you know the rest of the old boring story
was he good? damn, i know he was good at times
i also know he was a fwad who took advantage of young hopeful searching women girls whatev
you're just not supposed to do that. nobody should do it least of all a MOG
he was lucky. he got off easy. when some of these shrinks, camp counselors, school teachers, etc., get before a judge -- they don't ask about what good they've done. well, i'm sure lots of people come on as character witnesses, but when it gets right down to it, what happened ? that's what the judge wants to know, right?
he never had to face that. too bad
--
hi my friend linzee
i actually said "well said" to leafy but then your post was there when i was done
but well said to you too and socks
ps. i only bash men who are not nice
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Hi back my friend.
I only bash men who can't run faster than I can...that narrows it down quite a bit.
Seriously, I agree. I like men a lot, and I only bash the ones who treat people (men or women) like crap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
sometimes i can't shut up -- good thing i only have until march
vp held my hand and weeped over my past and the sexual abuse i endured as a child
i certainly did not come on to him as in "i'm yours, you man of god, you" (ugh)
when it came to -- oh never mind
it's difficult. i don't think the way i did then.
hi linzee
i know you got healed when he ministered to you and i thank god for that
i still wonder about a lot of this stuff just being god's gracious love to us
i will be the first to admit how screwed up i was and still am
i'm sorry about anyone i've hurt
takes a long time to "heal" find boundaries etc.
i'm not a minister pastor never would intentionally use and hurt
--
doesn't the bible say something like there is no good but god
(this is not defending vp lol)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
From my observations....not only do these men "buy into the wierwille bs," many have structured offshoots and networks that continue to keep hirelings over the flock. Along with a livelihood, or supplemental supply.......the fleecing continues.
When I left twi.....for awhile, I thought that its demise was martindale's fault, a majority of it, for sure. Yet, after a couple of months on Waydale.....it became clear to me that wierwille was a wolf in sheeps' clothing. Everything in his life was soiled with the works of the flesh.........lazy, bully, arrogant, braggart, con artist, plagairist, drunkard, sexual predator, etc,.....the man should have served prison time.
Good vs Evil...??
Some good versus "some evil"....??
Are you kidding me?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
If you don't mind me saying..
the victoid USED light and goodness to further his own evil twisted nature..
maybe just an opinion..
but in one sense, I think he damaged those he helped as much as if not more than those he abused..
so you got "healed". It wasn't "gifts" of healing.. I think you are still paying for the job..
just an observation..
at least those whom he strictly abused are free to curse his name..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
yeah. Those he "helped" are bound..
hand and foot..
look at John Lynn..
Schoenheit.. some of the others..
not all.
Physically healed? I'd prefer the scars over what some here must endure..
just some thoughts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
But I bet he threw a mean Frizbee.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Please forgive my forwardness, we don't know each other well, but there is nothing "stupid" about your honest open heart, nor is your story "boring". He was the one who was screwed up, I'm sorry you got caught in his crossfire, but it was his issue, not yours. You had every reason to trust who you thought was your pastor. The onus was on him to conduct himself properly. Having failed that, the responsibility fell to the other adults who were around but they were self serving as well.
You're right, he got off easy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Well, I will admit that there is ONE aspect of all this that does bother me. Consent. God is a God of consent. Mary gave consent before she became the mother of the Christ child (Luke 1:38) and Jesus gave consent before he offered himself as sacrifice for our sin (Luke 22:42). Plus didn't we hear ad nauseum that God would NEVER overstep man's free will?
I can excuse someone having desire. Although we have laws in this country regarding under age sex, for good reasons, we know that both males and females are able to cause conception and become pregnant at age 13 or so. I had my first sexual fantasy at age 12. It was about a 12 year old girl in my 7th grade homeroom. Having desire for someone that young is not "perverted". It's criminal if you actively pursue sexual relations, but it's not perverted to simply desire someone who is old enough to either cause conception (male) or get pregnant (female). Younger than that?
There was a regular poster here named Adiosmicorazon. She hasn't posted to my knowledge in years, but reading her posts, one would conclude that she has been an above average attractive female for most of her life. She once made the point that it's OK to call a child 'cute' or 'pretty' (handsome if a male), but not 'sexy'. Those 3 words are the 3 generic words used to describe the appearance of males and females. There are other words used, like 'hot' but they all seem to gravitate back to cute, pretty (handsome), and sexy. Cute and pretty can be adjusted cosmetically, but not sexy. If a male or female is sexy and everybody notices it, they're not sexy because of what they do cosmetically (make up, hair, clothes, etc.), they're sexy because of how they think. Because of what they understand about themselves, their social/cultural environment. We see ads all the time about sexy hair, sexy clothes, and such, but hair and clothes aren't literally sexy, people are, and they communicate it with their eyes and their body language. Young children aren't old enough to have that understanding yet. They can be cute or pretty, but not sexy. A pedophile sees a flash of the adult the child will become, pauses it, enlarges it, fantasizes about it, and acts on the fantasy.
VP has been accused of a lot of things, but not doing young children. Even the 46 year old middle school math teacher didn't do young children, just under age children. I can excuse simple desire, but not violation of consent; not using authority as a teacher/minister to coerce anyone, young or old, into a sexual relationship. That idea DOES bother me. I find it very disturbing.
I have stated that people are angry. People have a right to be angry to an extent. It's OK to be angry at what VP did. It is. But many suns have gone down on the wrath of some of you. All the evil in the universe doesn't negate our hope, which includes no more tears plus all the other good stuff. Don't forget that.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Johniam, your logic defies reason. When someone with real or perceived power exercises or forces their will on someone weaker, it is abuse. I don't care how old they are. This would include police/citizen, boss/employee, teacher/student, pastor/counselee, parent/child and yes, husband/wife.
In addition, you are arbitrarily choosing age of consent. The law says it's 18, you're taking the age down to being able to reproduce offspring. The pedophile does NOT see the adult the child will become, they see the child they want to consume with their own selfish lust. As with any addiction, one is never enough so he went from person to person.
I believe the line is drawn even further back than we're making it here in this thread. ONE sexual encounter outside the bounds of marriage should have constituted his removal from office. The moment he bedded some woman who was not his spouse was the moment he disqualified himself from leadership. Many here may disagree with that, and that's your privilege. I think most if not all will agree with this next statement. Rather than come clean with his behavior, Wierwille engaged in cover-up after cover-up. He called it the "lock box". The real name is deception. Deceptive practices also were a reason for him to be removed from office. MOGFOT? I don't think so.
VP seduced, raped, and drugged girls over 30 years his junior. Some of these girls were as young as 14. Yes, he did young children as did that teacher in your example. Johniam, what are you defending?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
There is something I find so off-putting in the way you discuss sexual issues. I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe it is your terminology? Possibly the idea of "doing" young children.... which to me is abusive language in itself. It avoids the more pertinent reality of molestation with a misplaced vernacular. Maybe it is the seemingly random introduction of pedophilia into the discussion.
It could definitely be this " Having desire for someone that young is not "perverted". It's criminal if you actively pursue sexual relations, but it's not perverted to simply desire someone who is old enough to either cause conception (male) or get pregnant (female). " I find that a disturbing rationalization and untoward statement when discussing a 13 year old CHILD. How old are you now?
It could also be my puritanical New England upbringing......but this discussion seems to be bordering on the edge of not only good taste, but morality. Also, I am curious....what does someone being above average in physical attractiveness have to do with their statements concerning words you can use to describe children? Being pretty does not make one an expert on what is allowable?
I do agree that there have been many suns that have set....which is why I am curious as to your seeming inability to process much of the available information concerning VP's life and actions. I think I am really wondering about the depth of your understanding of who God is and what salvation really means. This arises, in part, from your assumption that people here are born-again.......have a relationship with Jesus.....or have ever really been connected to the vine.
My hope for you is that you really take a fresh look at the sections of scripture related to SIT. There is a wealth of information there concerning the genuine and counterfeit. I bring this up assuming you are relying on that phenomenon we all shared in PFAL to confer spiritual identification on others here.
Yeah...I am more than a bit creeped out.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Post #146 as evidence . . . VPW will never die.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brainfixed
remember you wrote this.
really? doesn't the bible say that if you think a thing you've done the thing? how it is so convenient to jump from "the word of god" to the laws of man as needed to justify what is normally unjustifiable.
that's good someone said it!
this what you write here is very disturbing after what you wrote about about consent and then about having sexual desire for children as young as 12. what 12 year old does "everybody" notice as "sexy"? what 12 year old is "sexy because of how they think. Because of what they understand about themselves, their social/cultural environment."????
ok, you write that "young children aren't old enough to have that understanding yet.", and you write that "they can be cute or pretty, but not sexy.", and you write that "a pedophile sees a flash of the adult the child will become, pauses it, enlarges it, fantasizes about it, and acts on the fantasy.". you wrote these things after writing "It's criminal if you actively pursue sexual relations, but it's not perverted to simply desire someone who is old enough to either cause conception (male) or get pregnant (female)." again i have to ask what about what the bible says about if you think a thing then you've done the thing?
how old was his daughter that he "taught" about sex?
really? that's a fine and very blurred line you're walking.
but you did excuse it in all the stuff you wrote previously.
yeah i've heard this before in this context and it went something like this "just be a good girl and renew your mind because you want to get to heaven don't you?"
you hide very disturbing things in the middle of judgemental and condemning and self-excusing platitudes that you obviously don't even believe but hope are real or otherwise you're in for a rude awakening.
you have very successfully put a finger on what's so "off-putting in the way you discuss sexual issues." (to borrow someone else's words.)
just yuck and yuck and yuck.
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.