Was vpw a good man?

[johniam]

First, I am not subject to any of your religious rules.

quote: doesn't the bible say that if you think a thing you've done the thing?

No, it doesn't. It smells to me that you're referring to Matt. 5:27,28 - Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her committed adultery already with her in his heart.

In other words, EVERYBODY does this, even (gasp) women. That's right. Jesus was speaking to only his disciples here (verse 1), so he didn't have to include women lusting after men in his point since there were no women in attendance. Some of the men there thought that if they hadn't committed adultery in actual fact, then they were "better" sinners, "better" natural men than those who did commit adultery in actual fact. Same self righteous attitude persists to this day in some religious people. Jesus was trying to set them straight on that. Think about it.

Every single time you look at a man or a woman you make a judgement on their looks: either good looking, bad looking, or ordinary. If you think they're good looking, then where else are your thoughts going to go? Do you really con yourself that you NEVER think about SEX...what it might be like to actually do it with them? Most times you would look at the person, judge them as attractive, then quickly move on to what you needed to be thinking about, knowing that there was no way a relationship was ever going to happen and probably SHOULDN'T happen for any number of reasons. But the temptation is always there to start thinking about "how could I make this reality? Where would we meet? When? What is my alibi?"

Your mind goes there as much as anybody else's. Just because you never committed adultery in actual fact doesn't mean you don't need the Lord Jesus Christ. THAT'S the point Jesus was making. Even the so called Mosaic law could only take people so far. The law made nothing perfect (Heb. 7:19). The law was weak through the flesh (Rom 8:3). Whose flesh? OURS! God condemned sin in the flesh. He didn't condemn Brainfixed in the flesh, or Johniam in the flesh, or VP in the flesh. If righteousness was available by the law, why did Jesus have to be tortured and die???? You KNOW all this. You folks who's righteousness is dependent on religious rules will never get that.

Like I said before, there is not one human who lived to puberty who HASN'T been aroused by someone they couldn't possibly have an open relationship with. We ALL have the God given appetite for sexual desire. We live in a culture which has mores and laws like any other culture. Which culture would you rather live in? American culture where VP can try to get to you, or an Islamic culture where you could be burned for not being pleasing to your husband? There's always SOMETHING, isn't there?

I may be subject to the laws of the US culture, and I may be subject to God ultimately, but I am not subject to YOUR rules about how I should think or verbalize things.

[socks]

"really? doesn't the bible say that if you think a thing you've done the thing?"

There's a couple of things that balance in that brainfixed IMO. You're absolutely correct, Jesus drove a hard bargain in teaching on this very topic. Therein is a consistent point in the gospels - a person's heart.

A point to balance there is "not what goes into a man but what comes out", paraphrased.

Everyone's exposed to thiings that are wrong. That comes to us. What we do with it is the issue. In the middle of that is our brains and how we think about it. There's a process there that will produce the actions we take and God, looking on the heart, sees what's important. .

Jesus was forgiving and is painted in the gospels as very understanding of the human heart and psyche, yet when applying and interpreting the scriptures of the Torah (and the extrapolations of the day) he was far more strict and dare I say harsh than most people are today. Yet, he put that into a context of forgiveness, love, faith and human choice.

[brainfixed]

No, it doesn't. It smells to me that you're referring to Matt. 5:27,28 - Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her committed adultery already with her in his heart.

you wrote this just like you wrote the other things.

so you can't get a point unless it's put bluntly so ok i'll put it bluntly.

i would not allow any children around you and i would warn anybody i knew about the things you have written here.

"really? doesn't the bible say that if you think a thing you've done the thing?"

There's a couple of things that balance in that brainfixed IMO. You're absolutely correct, Jesus drove a hard bargain in teaching on this very topic. Therein is a consistent point in the gospels - a person's heart.

A point to balance there is "not what goes into a man but what comes out", paraphrased.

Everyone's exposed to thiings that are wrong. That comes to us. What we do with it is the issue. In the middle of that is our brains and how we think about it. There's a process there that will produce the actions we take and God, looking on the heart, sees what's important. .

Jesus was forgiving and is painted in the gospels as very understanding of the human heart and psyche, yet when applying and interpreting the scriptures of the Torah (and the extrapolations of the day) he was far more strict and dare I say harsh than most people are today. Yet, he put that into a context of forgiveness, love, faith and human choice.

forgiveness and balance are fine and dandy, but what this "johniam" writes about does fall under that "thinketh in your heart" umbrella and i'm not one that's going to put wool on fur because that's what the way international did that allowed what happened to women and children to not only go unpunished but proliferated under the same irrational, illogical and ungodly justifications written by this person.

[geisha779]

First, I am not subject to any of your religious rules.

quote: doesn't the bible say that if you think a thing you've done the thing?

No, it doesn't. It smells to me that you're referring to Matt. 5:27,28 - Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her committed adultery already with her in his heart.

In other words, EVERYBODY does this, even (gasp) women. That's right. Jesus was speaking to only his disciples here (verse 1), so he didn't have to include women lusting after men in his point since there were no women in attendance. Some of the men there thought that if they hadn't committed adultery in actual fact, then they were "better" sinners, "better" natural men than those who did commit adultery in actual fact. Same self righteous attitude persists to this day in some religious people. Jesus was trying to set them straight on that. Think about it.

Every single time you look at a man or a woman you make a judgement on their looks: either good looking, bad looking, or ordinary. If you think they're good looking, then where else are your thoughts going to go? Do you really con yourself that you NEVER think about SEX...what it might be like to actually do it with them? Most times you would look at the person, judge them as attractive, then quickly move on to what you needed to be thinking about, knowing that there was no way a relationship was ever going to happen and probably SHOULDN'T happen for any number of reasons. But the temptation is always there to start thinking about "how could I make this reality? Where would we meet? When? What is my alibi?"

Your mind goes there as much as anybody else's. Just because you never committed adultery in actual fact doesn't mean you don't need the Lord Jesus Christ. THAT'S the point Jesus was making. Even the so called Mosaic law could only take people so far. The law made nothing perfect (Heb. 7:19). The law was weak through the flesh (Rom 8:3). Whose flesh? OURS! God condemned sin in the flesh. He didn't condemn Brainfixed in the flesh, or Johniam in the flesh, or VP in the flesh. If righteousness was available by the law, why did Jesus have to be tortured and die???? You KNOW all this. You folks who's righteousness is dependent on religious rules will never get that.

Like I said before, there is not one human who lived to puberty who HASN'T been aroused by someone they couldn't possibly have an open relationship with. We ALL have the God given appetite for sexual desire. We live in a culture which has mores and laws like any other culture. Which culture would you rather live in? American culture where VP can try to get to you, or an Islamic culture where you could be burned for not being pleasing to your husband? There's always SOMETHING, isn't there?

I may be subject to the laws of the US culture, and I may be subject to God ultimately, but I am not subject to YOUR rules about how I should think or verbalize things.

You know what is really telling about this? There is no discussion on the sanctity of sex in marriage, the holiness of worship in the act......the beauty of God's design....it is all just a rationalization for lust......and I can promise you that I don't make a judgment on a persons looks every time I look at someone. I can also promise you that adultery does not cross my mind....nor am I tempted to break my vows to God or my husband.

Never once have I considered what I would use as an alibi.

Adultery....is repugnant to me. I am not speaking about others...I just know my own heart.

Sad to see someone speak about Jesus in one breath and this garbage in the next.

I am not sure what it means to be subject to God ultimately.....but, Christians are subject to Him right now.

Bolshevik hit the nail on the head.

Edited January 26, 2011 by geisha779

[Jim]

I go away for a week and come back to find that everybody has been on a mental Colon Cleanse.

Johniam, your posts get creepier and creepier as the thread goes on. We have no evidence that VPW had sex with kids. Non sequitur. We have no evidence that any number of clearly bad people have had sex with kids. That you'd even bring up such a thing makes me wonder about your mental state.

Here's the thing. I'm not much of a believer anymore. I don't know if there will be a judgment day and if there is I don't pretend to know how Wierwille will be judged. Not my job. Don't care. Not wasting brain cpu cycles on it. For all I know, Wierwille confessed all his sins before he died and God will forgive him and then reward him for his good works. That possibility is one of the issues I have with Christianity.

I do know that he hurt a lot of people. And he knowingly passed the the mantle to a certifiable buffoon that hurt even more people. Now sometimes you have to hurt people to help them (I had a root canal Friday). But for the most part, that wasn't the case. Wierwille and Martindale hurt people to control them, to gratify their desire for sex, power and probably a half-dozen other things that my Asperger's brain can't comprehend. And they did it in the name of God.

That is just plain wrong, my friend. No way to explain it away, rationalize it or excuse it. Just plain wrong. So in the real world of real people Weirwille was a bad person, not to be trusted and not to be supported. I sincerely regret the support that I gave him.

[leafytwiglet]

I want to thank Johniam for making me see just exactly what the Way International did... The leadership taught and we all followed along to some degree or other that, we were not subject to anyone elses religious rules. Any rules in the bible were old testament and so we were not subject to them.

ANyone who was abused was responsible for the attack.. it was their fault

anyone who is attractive is fair game for sexual abuse and brought it on their selves because of how they look or some sort of action they did... never mind they were just walking down teh streeet minding their own business.

God forgives you so you can commit any crime because you are not bound to the laws of the community.

Nothing a person does especially the MOGFOT who gets some kind of pass because he was so "SPIRITUAL that decency did not apply to him"

I think the many moons went down on your anger comment cemented it for me.

Crime is Crime and you can pretty it up anyway you want but it is still crime... and just because someone can get pregnant does not mean they are mentally or emotionally ready for sex.

Let me add this little caveat.. a 12 year old looking at another 12 year old does not equate to a grown man (over 21 trying to have sex or molest another child... and there are plenty of instances of grown men having sex and abusing little children... babies even... and women abusing shildren to not to let women off the hook.

As others mentioned VP sexually molested his own daughter... what makes you think she was a teen ager and what makes you think he only did it once. He was a first rate piece of trash... and quoting scripture does not make someone good... it is just quoting scripture lots of criminals do it all the time.

For that matter what makes you think that girls who are molested consented to it?

Edited January 26, 2011 by leafytwiglet

[socks]

Matthew 5:27,28

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The context of the lesson isn't the natural response between men and women and sexuality in general, it's in the context of adultery, and "lusting" after the married spouse of another. It appears in a series of lessons that are listed in chapter 5.

Physical reactions, desires, all of that, develop over a lifetime. How we learn to look and view others is part of individual character. The processes we learn and use over a lifetime will develop into our own responses.

The general topic of human sexuality is really a redirect here, perhaps a misdirect and has little to do with what Jesus is talking about. If the bible is being used as the standard then the instructions are clear and clarified even more based on what Jesus taught - adultery is a clear, simple and easy to understand violation of the relationship and committment of two adults. Jesus brings it into focus at an even more granular level.

It's not the "looking/lusting" at [any} woman (or man) that Jesus is referring to. It's the married spouse of another. The definition of "lust" is fairly clear and fits into the context too.

Saying that "we all do that" isn't an excuse or reasonable response. Jesus isn't addressing whether that's a common response of a man or woman, He's clarifying what "adultery" is. To go anywhere else with those verses is extraneous and unnecessary and it used to surprise me but no more, how convoluted discussions on that topic can become. People always make excuses.

Jesus didn't, he drilled it down to the root problem - what a person thinks in their heart and want to do is the core of "adultery". I could apply that to other areas of life given the fact that the "heart" and what a person thinks and believes is what God looks at and sees - if "God is looking at the heart" and sees "adultery" - then ?

The answer seems so simple and clear and it's hard to understand how people attempt to leverage God "looking on the heart" as a way to think that somehow God's going to not see what we really think, are, and want in life. That's the fabric of our relationship with God. And it adds layers of depth to what we then actually DO in life.

It is a "religious" view, if Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ are your religion of choice. No Christian or follower of Jesus, so-called, can deny the simplicity of what those verses state. We may not like it, think it too strict, too difficult but if we ignore it we're missing one of the most basic consistent messages throughout all of Jesus' teachings. Chuck it here but not other places - we've then selectively sliced and diced the gospels into a new version. So it goes, I guess.

Whatever went on between VPW and other women that weren't his wife was wrong, bad, against the teachings of Jesus Christ and the extrapolations that appear in the epistles' doctrine. It's not an issue of human sexuality or choice - we are the people we are and we make the choices we make. People make bad ones, develop bad habits, character traits, and pursue things that are wrong.

Human behavior can fall into gradients of gray but the shades are defined by the black and white.

[skyrider]

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.

I couldn't agree more.

Wierwille's "lock box" teaching was a pre-emptive, deceptive move......and with all I know, now, some 35 years later.....it stinks to high heaven. How many staff or corps girls left twi abused, confused, and distraught by wierwille's predation? Uugh.

And, why did wierwille avoid teaching on adultery even in his CFS class? Why did Walter Cumm1ns dismiss JS's adultery paper and cover wierwille's sins? Why did Geer's poop paper avoid this wierwille/adultery issue and put the then-current trustees in the hot seat? Distraction, perhaps? Why were all those who read this adultery paper fired from hq staff?

I smell a rat...........the wierwille doctrine.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

[Twinky]

VP has been accused of a lot of things, but not doing young 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.

The context of this thread is: WAS VPW A GOOD MAN?

And so here we have Johniam raising pedophile activities and then saying VPW didn't do those things. Therefore (it appears), because VPW didn't do that very serious wrong ... he was a good man????

Kinda like the nazi war trials where a concentration camp guard or even commandant wasn't punished so harshly because he did the occasional not-so-nasty thing to an inmate. Never mind that he caused or colluded in the death of thousands of others. No. They weren't "good" men, either.

I have to agree with Broken Arrow. After his first act of adultery, he disqualified himself as any sort of minister to God's people.

And I conclude that where VPW is concerned, Johniam is nothing more than a troll.

He so loves to post inflammatory remarks that are absolutely nothing at all to do with the topic in hand, get the place exploding in uproar, then throws some more gas on the fire.

Internet Troll

[johniam]

What a house of cards this is if one dissenting poster can upset the apple cart this much.

quote:

As others mentioned VP sexually molested his own daughter... what makes you think she was a teen ager and what makes you think he only did it once

She lives in MI. Why don't you call her and ask her about it rather than blindly believe what someone posted here. There's a website called zabasearch.com that will give phone numbers and addresses for free. Go ahead, call her. And while you're at it, why don't you ask her how she feels about the things said here about her dad?

quote: the holiness of worship in the act..

So you think the sex act itself is holy? What happens when you want to do it and he doesn't? Who is 'out of fellowship'? Can't be you, right? How about when he wants to and you don't? His fault again, right? Sounds kinda one sided to me. You sound like the TV drama women I referred to earlier. Always right. Always in control of the relationship by the utilization of double standards. You don't like dealing with "uppity, insubordinate" men like myself who wouldn't let you get away with that, huh?

quote: i would not allow any children around you and i would warn anybody i knew about the things you have written here.

That's interesting. Just hours ago I was told by several degreed educational professionals that my wife and I are committed, involved parents whom they really appreciate working with, as well as our 3 kids. These people have known us for over 10 years. But you can read a few of my posts, and you know all about me. Nice.

All of you I just quoted: you read my posts, but you leech onto and fixate about 1 or 2 sentences, pause them, enlarge them, think evil about them, and the only thing that prevents you from acting on the evil thinking is that you're there and I'm here.

Look. Less than one week to go. Are you going to let me ruin your final GSC experience? You have a thread on this forum about cults in the first century. I won't be posting there. Enjoy.

One last reminder: you're all born again, you have incorruptible seed and a lively hope. You will be gathered together when the Lord returns and you will be rewarded for all the good you have done in this life. This trumps any evil VP or anybody else could possibly do. Enjoy!

[Ham]

One last reminder: you're all born again, you have incorruptible seed and a lively hope.

you seem so very sure of this..

what if it wasn't all that simple..

You will be gathered together when the Lord returns and you will be rewarded for all the good you have done in this life.

maybe it will be the warm, fuzzy *family* that never quite happened to be here, in this existence..

[Ham]

Yeah. Dysfunctional here, what there?

sowy..

I've seen the other side..

the self-seeking promotion you see or have here..

somebody is going to have to help me. It's a word, or description that I can't call to remembrance.. what its it..

it's happened before. The word itself is blocked from me time and again, for some reason..

I think it starts with an "a".

the kung foo movie, the original. what was it.. the old man, wanting to go to the festival..

ah.. AMBITION..

that's it!

why do I do this..

[waysider]

"She lives in MI. Why don't you call her and ask her about it rather than blindly believe what someone posted here. There's a website called zabasearch.com that will give phone numbers and addresses for free. Go ahead, call her. And while you're at it, why don't you ask her how she feels about the things said here about her dad?"

Perhaps you weren't paying attention, John. People have come forward and given first hand testimony that Wierwille made these claims when addressing small, intimate groups. This is not hearsay. Wierwille stated, that when his daughter was approaching or had reached puberty, he fondled her nipples in order to sexually arouse her so she would know what to expect as she grew into womanhood. He claimed that this is something that is customary in aboriginal tribes in remote parts of the World. These incidents really happened. There is a bit more information that I know about this that I am just not going to post. You don't like that? Tough! Now, the question here is if he really did the things he claimed. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. I, for one, believe he did. But, we can't know for sure unless that person actually comes forward. However, we can be 100% sure that he did, at least, confess to committing such acts. What sort of "good person" would made such claims about interactions with his own daughter?

"Go ahead, call her. And while you're at it, why don't you ask her how she feels about the things said here about her dad?"

Maybe YOU should call HER and ask her how she feels about her father having made these claims. Personally, I doubt you have what it would take to make such a call.

Edited January 26, 2011 by waysider

[Ham]

No, they don't live in Michigan anymore..

zabasearch has an old address..

I could have asked in person. But I refrained..

it's their life..

I wonder where Dante would have placed da Victoid, in his divine "comedy"..

what a better world it would be..

if..

they just let sleeping (dead) wierwilles lie..

others..

"my gawd, man, there is a BUCK to be made.."

so you intend on stirring up this pot, with hopes of establishing some kind of successful ministry or something..

it doesn't work, for those who own da old man's trademark, why do you think it can work for YOU?

[waysider]

I could have asked in person. But I refrained..

it's their life..

I agree with you on this Mr. Squirrel. Simply knowing that he stood before groups of people and made such claims regarding his own daughter, whether true or not, is more than enough to disqualify him as a "good man" in my book.

Edited January 27, 2011 by waysider

[Ham]

and I wouldn't even DREAM of putting any said daughter under cross examination..

no.

She doesn't read here, I hope..

[geisha779]

quote: the holiness of worship in the act..

So you think the sex act itself is holy? What happens when you want to do it and he doesn't? Who is 'out of fellowship'? Can't be you, right? How about when he wants to and you don't? His fault again, right? Sounds kinda one sided to me. You sound like the TV drama women I referred to earlier. Always right. Always in control of the relationship by the utilization of double standards. You don't like dealing with "uppity, insubordinate" men like myself who wouldn't let you get away with that, huh?

Apparently you don't or can't understand what a mature committed Christian relationship means (i.e., God's only standard) if this is your comeback......being "out of fellowship"?. Do you honestly believe people are so shallow in their relationships that if someone isn't in the "mood" it is a matter of being "right"? That is just sad.

One of the things people hate about scripture is that the bible is crystal clear about sexual sin......we were always looking for the exception to the rule in TWI and what the heck....it is all grace anyway. God's standards are not too high.....grace is for falling while trying.

My husband pointed out that although you are apparently not subject to rules.... God's rules, societal rules, a moral code......you can actual use a phrase like "men like myself who wouldn't let you get away with that, huh?" and mean it. That is pathetic.

And just a point of reference....Matthew 5.27 and 28 are part of the Sermon on the Mount....not a private he-man woman haters club meeting. It was a very public discourse.

But, what do I know....I am just a TV drama woman. That must be it.

The minute things that are Holy in nature....just like God is Holy...are brought up....your teeth bare. What an odd phenomenon for someone who talks about the God of the bible and claims to believe in Him.

[Ham]

the only thing I wished.. is that they just ran off somewhere, and got a life.

anywhere else, other than the land of continual vic..

they had that chance..

[Ham]

and the IRONY of it.. it was ROSIE that gave them that chance..

same for number one son..

I'm beginning to think rosie was rotten, but not entirely to the core..

weird.. what am I seeing here..

hope it makes sense to somebody..

[Ham]

da old man was NOT a man of gawd.. he was a dick..

[waysider]

da old man was NOT a man of gawd.. he was a dick..

....and a limp one at that.

[Ham]

*thankfully* he didn't live long enough to realize Viagra..

[waysider]

*thankfully* he didn't live long enough to realize Viagra..

Let's just hope he was "shootin' blanks".

[Ham]

I wish..

he had many sons..

Lynn, Schoenheit.. they are the better known.

But what about clark, reard.. etc, etc..

they don't have the "name"..

in old terms, they would call them illegitimate, i.e., bastards..

Edited January 27, 2011 by Ham

[Broken Arrow]

What a house of cards this is if one dissenting poster can upset the apple cart this much.

Maybe this is a house of cards, I dunno, but I don't think you're exactly "upsetting the apple cart".

You don't like dealing with "uppity, insubordinate" men like myself who wouldn't let you get away with that, huh?

Come on, Johniam. You don't really take yourself that seriously, do you?

quote: i would not allow any children around you and i would warn anybody i knew about the things you have written here.

That's interesting. Just hours ago I was told by several degreed educational professionals that my wife and I are committed, involved parents whom they really appreciate working with, as well as our 3 kids. These people have known us for over 10 years. But you can read a few of my posts, and you know all about me. Nice.

If you don't want feedback, why are you posting?

To be frank, based on what I've seen you write, I wouldn't let you be put in any sort of authority over children either. Do I know all about you? No. But to me your writings suggest you have some broken boundaries when it comes to establishing healthy sexual boundaries toward children, at least in your mind. To this point you refuse to see it in yourself and you throw up defenses in avoidance.

I'm going to step out of this discussion now because I have nothing more to add that hasn't already been said. In the end we stand before the Father and all of us will have to give an account. With that being said, I wish you Godspeed.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Broken Arrow