VPs teaching of the word was too detailed for him to just be scamming us. He could have been an auto mechanic or a salesman if he just wanted to scam people. He really believed what he taught biblically. He loved the word of God. He communicated that when he taught. That's what encouraged us to sell it to others. Most of us never met VP or never spent any time with him. The fruit of the spirit we saw was in other people.
A long time ago, I heard that skeptics who are fooled by someone become the most hard-nosed
dogmatists for a con, because they started from the position that they were UNABLE to be
conned. They had absolutes and thought that they could see through ANY level of con
NO MATTER WHAT- so all the conman had to do was exceed their threshold of skepticism, and then
he didn't have to try so hard to keep his con going. They already went from "skeptic" to
"conned victim." It is not a coincidence that the "outer layers" of twi
(the heavily-controlled tapes, books, ROAs) were the most carefully-controlled parts of twi.
Those are the levels we all saw from week to week. Any skepticism any of us have, that's the
parts we expose them to. Those steps were composed with lots and lots of material from specific
Christians who vpw considered tops-Bullinger, Leonard, Stiles, Kenyon, others, often without
attribution or LIMITED attribution (mentioning one attribution and leaving another unstated)-
and with lots of sincere Christians at the local level who really wanted to do their best for
God.
Once some of us were more thoroughly fleeced as to the legitimacy of twi
("no counterfeit could produce so much legitimate teaching"-
sure it could- just grab work of good Christians, then spit it back out and don't tell anyone
that's exactly what you're doing. Then add lots of showmanship- vpw was a HELL of a showman-
and voila! Convincing con that LOOKS like a legitimate Christian movement)
we went off into deeper levels of twi.
The next layers had a LOT less "meat" from conventional Christians to fool us-
because we were ALREADY fooled, and MORE fooled the further on we moved.
The wow program- godly? Well, it was presented as so, and the participants intended to serve
God, but the program was designed haphazardly, putting young men and women together into
one household, sending them into strange places, some of them dangerous, and requiring them
to go door to door, even in the most dangerous neighborhoods. Small wonder reports came back
that some of the wows were having sex with each other, or were in physical danger in their
assignments. What was the "support" from the "denomination" sending them out?
They CHARGED the wows for going out, they required them to supply their OWN transportation
to their assignment, they required they cover ALL their own expenses- housing, food, sundries,
and assigned them to run classes which brought money in to twi. When the classes were assembled
(and money was paid), the organization sent copies of videotapes, which were sent back as soon as
the class was over. (All class costs were charged "retail" to the new students for the
Foundational, and the Intermediate was charged HIGHER than retail.)
The wow program was designed to turn a financial profit- and it did.
The way corps program- godly? Well, it was presented as so, and the participants intended to serve
God, but the program was set up piecemeal. The priority- to quote vpw himself-
"YOU CAN STAY AS LONG AS YOUR MONEY HOLDS!- and that was for when the program was unformed.
Christians intended TO WORK FOR TWI- did TWI subsidize their education?
A) they were charged for their program
B) they worked during their program (for which they were charged)
C) the classes could all easily fit in 1 year-the college division certainly did, for the same classes
D) significant amounts of the remaining time were for things like RUNS and exercise
E) their housing was in tiny cubicles. College students would have found their space tiny.
(That might be sensible, say, for housing someone for a long weekend, but for even a WEEK that's
confining, and for an extended stay, it's ridiculous.)
The way corps program was designed to turn a financial profit- and it did.
And that's not even addressing how the corps was carefully sifted for sex victims by vpw.
We've addressed that lots of times- how vpw used the "birth to the corps" papers to look for
victims, even spotted holding it in his hand when trying to target a woman, or quoting from
it when trying to convincer her God wanted her to have sex with vpw. The papers, the location
(vpw had physical places set up to target women- one man doesn't need multiple places to sleep
on ONE campus where he has vehicles to travel the campus as well as vehicles with beds for when
he's on the road), the cadre (people were used to contrive excuses for the woman to be alone
with vpw at one of these places, and monitor them afterwards). The most carefully-constructed
parts of the corps were the payment structure and the cadre to arrange vpw's victims.
Those who actually spent time with vpw in unstructured times saw a man NOYHING LIKE the man
we heard of back home, back in the taped classes, or up on the stage at the ROA.
They saw a man who was given to immature rages at a moment's notice, who spent all day feeding
fleshly vices of drink and tobacco, with a filthy mouth and the moral behavior of a gutter rat
(how many Christian ministries would tolerate having a minister who copped a feel of women?),
and who, when he taught, would often teach some great teachings using the materials of other
men. If there's any doubt, he had a location where he stockpiled books from other Christians,
and he would privately mine them for "his" teachings. A handful of people saw those. I spoke
personally to one of the few people who had access to it-which, of course, was restricted,
since it was the keystone to his entire con.)
Can a conman go on for hours and hours with legitimate Bible, sound completely legitimate,
even shed tears while preaching, and still be a complete conman?
They can- and he did.
Any convincing conman, or any convincing actor, can summon up such a display.
Shakespeare's fans are well aware of this. A character in Hamlet is an actor, who is asked to
do a recital about part of the Trojan War. When speaking about Hecuba, he sheds tears.
Was it because he personally cared about Hecuba, or did he so completely throw himself into
the acted role that a tear was the obvious response?
To anyone not still conned, the answers are all obvious. Any decent actor can make ANYTHING
sound deep. Actors have performed exercises where a shopping list, gibberish, or silly sentences
were spoken with great fervor. Add to that an actual set of substantial materials, and any
actor worth the name could make himself sound devout, and the originator of any teaching or
research.
vpw SOUNDED LIKE he really believed what he taught- and this was a man who taught that a man
was not supposed to "help himself" to a woman- with verse reference,
then turned around and helped himself to women. Did he believe it was wrong when he was
doing it- and thus deliberately sinning against God- or did he believe it was ok with God
when he was doing it- and thus deliberately lying when teaching it was wrong?
vpw SOUNDED LIKE he loved the word of God-but if it really mattered to him in his heart,
why spend most of his days contradicting it so flagrantly?
(Even while teaching- how many Christian ministries permit ministers to sip alcohol from
cups of alcohol WHILE TEACHING?)
Scamming people as an auto mechanic would have required a LOT more work, and been a LOT
easier to expose, and a LOT easier to criminally prosecute.
People EXPECT a salesman to try to con you.
Who expected a minister to con you, to fondle women as he did, to molest women, drug and
rape them as he did? What minister is expected to sweat and grunt through hard
physical labor like a farmer or auto mechanic?
Becoming a minister allowed him to work less than the other options he considered-
and even his own father said he was lazy on the farm, and even his own brother admitted
he ditched his chores all the time. So, less labor and less dirty work,
and more trust and authority, and eventually lots of chances to have unrestricted
access to people naive enough to trust him.
vpw conned many people quite well. In hindsight it's rather obvious- unless one is still
quote: quote: What is the common denominator? Is it not desire?
No.
Then what is it?
I would be more than happy to discuss "love", and the "love of God" with you. I'm interested in an exchange of ideas, but I'm not interested in a game of "dueling doctrines".
Anyway, with respect to love, you and I both know that with us humanoids desire is inconsistent. We make commitments to love a spouse "till death do us part". We have a responsibility to love our children. If we adhere to the Christian ethic, we are supposed to "love the brethren" as well as those who are "without" (No, I'm not delving in to that silly "in the household, outside the household" claptrap that in reality was an excuse to acting hateful to people we didn't like. If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't worry about it).
Therefore I say that the least common denominator for love is actually commitment. I know, I know...we've been beaten over the head with that word too, but hear me out. Sometimes for whatever reason we may not have a "desire" to love our spouses, children, brethren, etc. Sometimes people act less than loveable, sometimes we ourselves are acting like jerks, but desire comes and goes. If that's what we're basing things on, then we'll quit on somebody as soon as we don't feel good about it. I'm not talking about staying in abusive relationships. That's a subject with its own path.
A long time ago, I heard that skeptics who are fooled by someone become the most hard-nosed
dogmatists for a con, because they started from the position that they were UNABLE to be
conned. They had absolutes and thought that they could see through ANY level of con
NO MATTER WHAT- so all the conman had to do was exceed their threshold of skepticism, and then
he didn't have to try so hard to keep his con going. They already went from "skeptic" to
"conned victim."
YES!! Well said. Those who think they can't be fooled again are running a risk of being vulnerable to another con. That may sound unlikely, but it's true. Those who realize that they can be fooled, are in a better place because they recognize their vulnerability. It's important to know one's weakness so we can watch and be ready, and also we can lean on others for support.
"1) Old man Wierwille never taught safe boundaries. (We know what all his children said, and how they turned out.)
We also have some testimony as to his own behavior.
I had asked you just what did his children say, and what's wrong with they way they turned out? Is there something written, or was there a conversation someone had with them?
I think that's basically what won us over to twi. Someone was willing to look past our flesh and be encouraging and compassionate and understanding toward us in order to give us a chance to choose Jesus Christ, or a better understanding of Jesus Christ if we were already born again.
I am confused by why you give the glory due God...to TWI.....we are not supposed to be won over to a *ministry*....or even to a book.....and that is not what gives us a chance to choose Jesus Christ. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. He convicts us of our sins....which is what leads us to repentance and the acceptance of the Savior. You have to know you need one, before you can accept Him. The process of salvation originates with God and He is glorified.....God calls us to repent. He was compassionate in giving His son while we were dead in trespass and sin. He meets us where we are....and then tells us to turn around and go the other way....we are headed in the wrong direction. Our only "chance" is the Holy Spirit.
John 16: 7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
Do you really think we got a "better" understanding of the absent Christ in TWI? We did use His name at the end of a prayer....but, did we ever talk to Him? Or did we replace Him?
"Someone was willing to look past our flesh and be encouraging and compassionate and understanding toward us in order to give us a chance to choose Jesus Christ, or a better understanding of Jesus Christ if we were already born again."
Sorry to have to tell you this. What you really experienced is commonly called "love bombing". It's conditional. The Way used it to get people signed up for "the class".
"Someone was willing to look past our flesh and be encouraging and compassionate and understanding toward us in order to give us a chance to choose Jesus Christ, or a better understanding of Jesus Christ if we were already born again."
Sorry to have to tell you this. What you really experienced is commonly called "love bombing". It's conditional. The Way used it to get people signed up for "the class".
and not original...the Moonie's do it too...... along with lots of other cults. You just want to believe it too because .....who doesn't want to hear "You're the best!". A year later...the same people can turn on you like ravenous wolves.
Big difference in healthy family love and TWI "love:"
The real thing: when a family member hurts (illness, injury), the family rallies around to protect and help
TWI love: when a family member hurts, the "family" pushes them away (and often find fault with them) unless or until they can be useful to the ministry
Big difference in healthy family love and TWI "love:"
The real thing: when a family member hurts (illness, injury), the family rallies around to protect and help
TWI love: when a family member hurts, the "family" pushes them away (and often find fault with them) unless or until they can be useful to the ministry
right you are, Shazdancer !
i can think of another big difference between a REAL family's love and TWI's love: a REAL family's love is unconditional - the old blood is thicker than water thing.....whereas, TWI's love was based upon the condition that one is willing to comply with their rules, accept their standards, pledge total allegiance to their cause .
....and that's just the gosh awful truth about the whole bunch of hypocritical weasels......and it all stems from the founder....for as much ranting as vp used to do about agape, loving people unconditionally, forgiveness, grace, having no problem forgiving others cuz he reminded himself what God forgave him for, yada yada yada - - he was an extremely tightfisted tyrant of The Way Misery [yup - Misery - that's not a proofreader's oversight- but may be considered an interpolation :unsure:].
.....victoids' Misery a safe harbor - my foot! the love-bombing a slick ploy to beckon folks in - once you're in that "safe harbor" you can be rest assured if you ever had anything of value on board, ol' pirate vic would relieve you of such worldly concerns while he gets you to keep an eye out for the greatest cargoes of life - "yes, shipmates - any day now your ship will come in - just keep working that quiet seas mantra....believing equals receiving.....believing equals receiving......uhm....where's the key to the lock on the cargo hold?"
well, military people never went to see their families for holidays!
excuse me, a$$hole, i didn't join the military
and how about sick friends, funerals, etc.
i had a dear friend laid up in the hospital from a bad car wreck and i was encouraged/reproved to get myself to my assignment which was apprentice corps -- not even the damn corps
i just hated this stuff and i endured for god i thought
--
i didn't see wierwille not seeing his family for holidays
oh man i could go on and on and bore myself to death
When I first got in, all I heard about was how much everybody "just loved me" and how they thought I was so wonderful and special. And, you know, when I finally left, I'm not so sure anyone even noticed I was gone. (So much for "We sure do love you.") That's not how a real family operates. Even when they're totally disappointed in you, most families will still stick by you and try to help you see things through. And, even though there were some genuinely good people involved with The Way, in the large sense, the organization was nothing but a bunch of "fair-weather" friends. (And the weather was always fair when "green cards" were being signed.)
Yep.. they must have been absolutely nuts.. didn't the mom have a few parenting instincts? I understand that they are supposed to..
what circumvented all that?
anyway.
what I'm still waiting for is a definition of just what the safe harbor WAS. Instead, I've been treated to dissertations of the victoid's research, bible(?) teachings about "love the sinner, hate the sin.."
references to the victoid wheezing for five solid hours about the word "of"..
and it seems typical of way behavior. If you don't know, or feel uncomfortable with the question, just ask another one.
"you have a problem with forgiveness, don't you?" or something like that..
so. One more time..
why does the Porridge bird lay his egg in the air..
ahem. Sorry..
one more time. What is this "safe haven"? can you define it without a vague reference to some verse in Psalms?
what was it? Who was really able to enjoy it? In a tangible sense, what was it?
A safe haven from WHAT? Or who?
Might seem like five questions. No, these are reasonable SUGGESTIONS on how you might answer the question.
I'm not entirely accepting the ability to wheeze on for five hours about "of" to qualify..
In order for anything or place to be a "safe haven", it must meet two basic requirements. It must be "safe" and it must be a "haven". The Way was neither of the two. Well, alright, it was a "haven", of sorts, for the unscrupulous but it certainly wasn't "safe".
In order for anything or place to be a "safe haven", it must meet two basic requirements. It must be "safe" and it must be a "haven". The Way was neither of the two. Well, alright, it was a "haven", of sorts, for the unscrupulous but it certainly wasn't "safe".
yep. this is what prompts the question.. "for WHOM was it safe? under what conditions?"
Another observation. "the devil kicked my rear before I *joined* da way. He kicked it during my stay, and he kicked it after I left". (very rough paraphrase).
so.. what good did your *affiliation* with da organization exactly accomplish?
Let's not go into that now. I'm still waiting for the definition of tangible safety here..
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
148
118
61
Popular Days
Feb 20
32
Feb 23
32
Feb 2
31
Feb 27
29
Top Posters In This Topic
johniam 61 posts
Ham 148 posts
waysider 118 posts
So_crates 61 posts
Popular Days
Feb 20 2011
32 posts
Feb 23 2011
32 posts
Feb 2 2011
31 posts
Feb 27 2011
29 posts
Popular Posts
Broken Arrow
I
WordWolf
Have I mentioned lately that I'm actually getting quite a bit out of this thread? I don't just mean in a sense of psychology/sociology/criminology, but in a sense of Christian learning. The whole p
T-Bone
morals are man-made? Really?!?! please provide some documentation to back up that philosophical assertion. personally i lean toward the christian idea [that does have a biblical basis] that man is m
waysider
Aww, 'cmon, Ham, can't you be a little more specific?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
we were warned to steer clear of other people's "stuff" that wasn't "vicster approved".
One limb "coordinator" in California went as far as to BAN the use of Companion Bibles..
what an arrogant, moronic buffoon. The insult is VERY MUCH intended here. Well, to the buffoon. But his fader in da verd just loved him..
why the fear?
afraid of what? That somebody in "twig" might know a few more greek words?
or see the source where the victoid outright copied page after page?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
A long time ago, I heard that skeptics who are fooled by someone become the most hard-nosed
dogmatists for a con, because they started from the position that they were UNABLE to be
conned. They had absolutes and thought that they could see through ANY level of con
NO MATTER WHAT- so all the conman had to do was exceed their threshold of skepticism, and then
he didn't have to try so hard to keep his con going. They already went from "skeptic" to
"conned victim." It is not a coincidence that the "outer layers" of twi
(the heavily-controlled tapes, books, ROAs) were the most carefully-controlled parts of twi.
Those are the levels we all saw from week to week. Any skepticism any of us have, that's the
parts we expose them to. Those steps were composed with lots and lots of material from specific
Christians who vpw considered tops-Bullinger, Leonard, Stiles, Kenyon, others, often without
attribution or LIMITED attribution (mentioning one attribution and leaving another unstated)-
and with lots of sincere Christians at the local level who really wanted to do their best for
God.
Once some of us were more thoroughly fleeced as to the legitimacy of twi
("no counterfeit could produce so much legitimate teaching"-
sure it could- just grab work of good Christians, then spit it back out and don't tell anyone
that's exactly what you're doing. Then add lots of showmanship- vpw was a HELL of a showman-
and voila! Convincing con that LOOKS like a legitimate Christian movement)
we went off into deeper levels of twi.
The next layers had a LOT less "meat" from conventional Christians to fool us-
because we were ALREADY fooled, and MORE fooled the further on we moved.
The wow program- godly? Well, it was presented as so, and the participants intended to serve
God, but the program was designed haphazardly, putting young men and women together into
one household, sending them into strange places, some of them dangerous, and requiring them
to go door to door, even in the most dangerous neighborhoods. Small wonder reports came back
that some of the wows were having sex with each other, or were in physical danger in their
assignments. What was the "support" from the "denomination" sending them out?
They CHARGED the wows for going out, they required them to supply their OWN transportation
to their assignment, they required they cover ALL their own expenses- housing, food, sundries,
and assigned them to run classes which brought money in to twi. When the classes were assembled
(and money was paid), the organization sent copies of videotapes, which were sent back as soon as
the class was over. (All class costs were charged "retail" to the new students for the
Foundational, and the Intermediate was charged HIGHER than retail.)
The wow program was designed to turn a financial profit- and it did.
The way corps program- godly? Well, it was presented as so, and the participants intended to serve
God, but the program was set up piecemeal. The priority- to quote vpw himself-
"YOU CAN STAY AS LONG AS YOUR MONEY HOLDS!- and that was for when the program was unformed.
Christians intended TO WORK FOR TWI- did TWI subsidize their education?
A) they were charged for their program
B) they worked during their program (for which they were charged)
C) the classes could all easily fit in 1 year-the college division certainly did, for the same classes
D) significant amounts of the remaining time were for things like RUNS and exercise
E) their housing was in tiny cubicles. College students would have found their space tiny.
(That might be sensible, say, for housing someone for a long weekend, but for even a WEEK that's
confining, and for an extended stay, it's ridiculous.)
The way corps program was designed to turn a financial profit- and it did.
And that's not even addressing how the corps was carefully sifted for sex victims by vpw.
We've addressed that lots of times- how vpw used the "birth to the corps" papers to look for
victims, even spotted holding it in his hand when trying to target a woman, or quoting from
it when trying to convincer her God wanted her to have sex with vpw. The papers, the location
(vpw had physical places set up to target women- one man doesn't need multiple places to sleep
on ONE campus where he has vehicles to travel the campus as well as vehicles with beds for when
he's on the road), the cadre (people were used to contrive excuses for the woman to be alone
with vpw at one of these places, and monitor them afterwards). The most carefully-constructed
parts of the corps were the payment structure and the cadre to arrange vpw's victims.
Those who actually spent time with vpw in unstructured times saw a man NOYHING LIKE the man
we heard of back home, back in the taped classes, or up on the stage at the ROA.
They saw a man who was given to immature rages at a moment's notice, who spent all day feeding
fleshly vices of drink and tobacco, with a filthy mouth and the moral behavior of a gutter rat
(how many Christian ministries would tolerate having a minister who copped a feel of women?),
and who, when he taught, would often teach some great teachings using the materials of other
men. If there's any doubt, he had a location where he stockpiled books from other Christians,
and he would privately mine them for "his" teachings. A handful of people saw those. I spoke
personally to one of the few people who had access to it-which, of course, was restricted,
since it was the keystone to his entire con.)
Can a conman go on for hours and hours with legitimate Bible, sound completely legitimate,
even shed tears while preaching, and still be a complete conman?
They can- and he did.
Any convincing conman, or any convincing actor, can summon up such a display.
Shakespeare's fans are well aware of this. A character in Hamlet is an actor, who is asked to
do a recital about part of the Trojan War. When speaking about Hecuba, he sheds tears.
Was it because he personally cared about Hecuba, or did he so completely throw himself into
the acted role that a tear was the obvious response?
To anyone not still conned, the answers are all obvious. Any decent actor can make ANYTHING
sound deep. Actors have performed exercises where a shopping list, gibberish, or silly sentences
were spoken with great fervor. Add to that an actual set of substantial materials, and any
actor worth the name could make himself sound devout, and the originator of any teaching or
research.
vpw SOUNDED LIKE he really believed what he taught- and this was a man who taught that a man
was not supposed to "help himself" to a woman- with verse reference,
then turned around and helped himself to women. Did he believe it was wrong when he was
doing it- and thus deliberately sinning against God- or did he believe it was ok with God
when he was doing it- and thus deliberately lying when teaching it was wrong?
vpw SOUNDED LIKE he loved the word of God-but if it really mattered to him in his heart,
why spend most of his days contradicting it so flagrantly?
(Even while teaching- how many Christian ministries permit ministers to sip alcohol from
cups of alcohol WHILE TEACHING?)
Scamming people as an auto mechanic would have required a LOT more work, and been a LOT
easier to expose, and a LOT easier to criminally prosecute.
People EXPECT a salesman to try to con you.
Who expected a minister to con you, to fondle women as he did, to molest women, drug and
rape them as he did? What minister is expected to sweat and grunt through hard
physical labor like a farmer or auto mechanic?
Becoming a minister allowed him to work less than the other options he considered-
and even his own father said he was lazy on the farm, and even his own brother admitted
he ditched his chores all the time. So, less labor and less dirty work,
and more trust and authority, and eventually lots of chances to have unrestricted
access to people naive enough to trust him.
vpw conned many people quite well. In hindsight it's rather obvious- unless one is still
in the con.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
If I'm not mistaken, he got his real break by marrying into da vicster's mob..
His "teachings" were probably as much a yawn-fest as the victoid wheezing on hours on end about the word "of".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mind you, lots of stuff has been traced to its original sources.
If one manages to sit and name something that has not been traced,
that's hardly proof that wasn't stolen.
After all, a thief whom the Police have not found evidence against
is still a thief-just a more careful thief.
vpw's been proven to have ripped off material, both generally and specifically.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
To be or not to be-----Let me expound on "not" for the next 5 hours.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
This of course will be followed by a special 20 hour word study on "the."
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I would be more than happy to discuss "love", and the "love of God" with you. I'm interested in an exchange of ideas, but I'm not interested in a game of "dueling doctrines".
Anyway, with respect to love, you and I both know that with us humanoids desire is inconsistent. We make commitments to love a spouse "till death do us part". We have a responsibility to love our children. If we adhere to the Christian ethic, we are supposed to "love the brethren" as well as those who are "without" (No, I'm not delving in to that silly "in the household, outside the household" claptrap that in reality was an excuse to acting hateful to people we didn't like. If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't worry about it).
Therefore I say that the least common denominator for love is actually commitment. I know, I know...we've been beaten over the head with that word too, but hear me out. Sometimes for whatever reason we may not have a "desire" to love our spouses, children, brethren, etc. Sometimes people act less than loveable, sometimes we ourselves are acting like jerks, but desire comes and goes. If that's what we're basing things on, then we'll quit on somebody as soon as we don't feel good about it. I'm not talking about staying in abusive relationships. That's a subject with its own path.
Anyway, just my thoughts.
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
YES!! Well said. Those who think they can't be fooled again are running a risk of being vulnerable to another con. That may sound unlikely, but it's true. Those who realize that they can be fooled, are in a better place because they recognize their vulnerability. It's important to know one's weakness so we can watch and be ready, and also we can lean on others for support.
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Wordwolf, yesterday you said that,
"1) Old man Wierwille never taught safe boundaries. (We know what all his children said, and how they turned out.)
We also have some testimony as to his own behavior.
I had asked you just what did his children say, and what's wrong with they way they turned out? Is there something written, or was there a conversation someone had with them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I am confused by why you give the glory due God...to TWI.....we are not supposed to be won over to a *ministry*....or even to a book.....and that is not what gives us a chance to choose Jesus Christ. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. He convicts us of our sins....which is what leads us to repentance and the acceptance of the Savior. You have to know you need one, before you can accept Him. The process of salvation originates with God and He is glorified.....God calls us to repent. He was compassionate in giving His son while we were dead in trespass and sin. He meets us where we are....and then tells us to turn around and go the other way....we are headed in the wrong direction. Our only "chance" is the Holy Spirit.
John 16: 7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
Do you really think we got a "better" understanding of the absent Christ in TWI? We did use His name at the end of a prayer....but, did we ever talk to Him? Or did we replace Him?
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Someone was willing to look past our flesh and be encouraging and compassionate and understanding toward us in order to give us a chance to choose Jesus Christ, or a better understanding of Jesus Christ if we were already born again."
Sorry to have to tell you this. What you really experienced is commonly called "love bombing". It's conditional. The Way used it to get people signed up for "the class".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
and not original...the Moonie's do it too...... along with lots of other cults. You just want to believe it too because .....who doesn't want to hear "You're the best!". A year later...the same people can turn on you like ravenous wolves.
Really sincere love.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
Sorry to have to tell you this. What you really experienced is commonly called "love bombing
Any family could be accused of that. Perhaps that's why so many of us were looking for love outside our families.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Your logic doesn't follow: If any family could be accused of love bombing, why look for love outside our families?
After all, we're getting love in them, in the form of bombing, right?
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Big difference in healthy family love and TWI "love:"
The real thing: when a family member hurts (illness, injury), the family rallies around to protect and help
TWI love: when a family member hurts, the "family" pushes them away (and often find fault with them) unless or until they can be useful to the ministry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
right you are, Shazdancer !
i can think of another big difference between a REAL family's love and TWI's love: a REAL family's love is unconditional - the old blood is thicker than water thing.....whereas, TWI's love was based upon the condition that one is willing to comply with their rules, accept their standards, pledge total allegiance to their cause .
....and that's just the gosh awful truth about the whole bunch of hypocritical weasels......and it all stems from the founder....for as much ranting as vp used to do about agape, loving people unconditionally, forgiveness, grace, having no problem forgiving others cuz he reminded himself what God forgave him for, yada yada yada - - he was an extremely tightfisted tyrant of The Way Misery [yup - Misery - that's not a proofreader's oversight- but may be considered an interpolation :unsure:].
.....victoids' Misery a safe harbor - my foot! the love-bombing a slick ploy to beckon folks in - once you're in that "safe harbor" you can be rest assured if you ever had anything of value on board, ol' pirate vic would relieve you of such worldly concerns while he gets you to keep an eye out for the greatest cargoes of life - "yes, shipmates - any day now your ship will come in - just keep working that quiet seas mantra....believing equals receiving.....believing equals receiving......uhm....where's the key to the lock on the cargo hold?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
well, military people never went to see their families for holidays!
excuse me, a$$hole, i didn't join the military
and how about sick friends, funerals, etc.
i had a dear friend laid up in the hospital from a bad car wreck and i was encouraged/reproved to get myself to my assignment which was apprentice corps -- not even the damn corps
i just hated this stuff and i endured for god i thought
--
i didn't see wierwille not seeing his family for holidays
oh man i could go on and on and bore myself to death
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ps. when he and his wife went to india or wherever and left their little baby for 8 months or however long, i think they were insane
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
When I first got in, all I heard about was how much everybody "just loved me" and how they thought I was so wonderful and special. And, you know, when I finally left, I'm not so sure anyone even noticed I was gone. (So much for "We sure do love you.") That's not how a real family operates. Even when they're totally disappointed in you, most families will still stick by you and try to help you see things through. And, even though there were some genuinely good people involved with The Way, in the large sense, the organization was nothing but a bunch of "fair-weather" friends. (And the weather was always fair when "green cards" were being signed.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Yep.. they must have been absolutely nuts.. didn't the mom have a few parenting instincts? I understand that they are supposed to..
what circumvented all that?
anyway.
what I'm still waiting for is a definition of just what the safe harbor WAS. Instead, I've been treated to dissertations of the victoid's research, bible(?) teachings about "love the sinner, hate the sin.."
references to the victoid wheezing for five solid hours about the word "of"..
and it seems typical of way behavior. If you don't know, or feel uncomfortable with the question, just ask another one.
"you have a problem with forgiveness, don't you?" or something like that..
so. One more time..
why does the Porridge bird lay his egg in the air..
ahem. Sorry..
one more time. What is this "safe haven"? can you define it without a vague reference to some verse in Psalms?
what was it? Who was really able to enjoy it? In a tangible sense, what was it?
A safe haven from WHAT? Or who?
Might seem like five questions. No, these are reasonable SUGGESTIONS on how you might answer the question.
I'm not entirely accepting the ability to wheeze on for five hours about "of" to qualify..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
In order for anything or place to be a "safe haven", it must meet two basic requirements. It must be "safe" and it must be a "haven". The Way was neither of the two. Well, alright, it was a "haven", of sorts, for the unscrupulous but it certainly wasn't "safe".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
how many usages of the genitive case are there? Even dumb Squirrels know that..
give me a break here..
was it "Paul a servant, of, that is to say, owned by Jesus Christ (genitive of possession)
or was it Genitive of Character.. or was it..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I could wheeze on for five hours as well..
does that make you feel "safe"?
yep. this is what prompts the question.. "for WHOM was it safe? under what conditions?"
Another observation. "the devil kicked my rear before I *joined* da way. He kicked it during my stay, and he kicked it after I left". (very rough paraphrase).
so.. what good did your *affiliation* with da organization exactly accomplish?
Let's not go into that now. I'm still waiting for the definition of tangible safety here..
Edited by HamLink 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.