. . . . just what is it we should be grateful to him for?
I am still trying to figure that one out......it has taken a long time and often painful realizations to be delivered from most of what he taught. I am not very grateful to him for that. I was in a cult....not grateful and not a great story to tell at parties or bible study for that matter. I wasted my time serving some misguided ministry when I could have been serving God....I am not very glad about that.
I am still realizing things about those teachings....I was listening to an actual Christian teacher the other night speaking about our assurance in the Lord and it dawned on me just how deceptive VP was.....He told us that SIT was "the external manifestation in the senses realm of the internal reality of the presence and the power of the HS." That we could know, that we know, that we know, because we SIT. Heaven bound and all hell could not stop us.
Well, if we put our faith in the Lord and truly do believe in our hearts....if we trust Jesus and He is Lord....really Lord, we are actually convinced....then why wouldn't we know something we believe in the deepest part of our being? We believe in our hearts....we trust Him....we give our lives to Him.....why do we need a sign? Just in case? What? I don't get it?
Well, I actually do get it.....that is unbelief. Not faith. It is the polar opposite of actual faith. 1 Corinthians 14:22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers. . . . .
People who didn't believe sought signs.....SIT was a sign to those who didn't believe. All I had to do was look at the accounts in scripture to see this......but, my head was so full of garbage from that "teacher" I couldn't even read the bible and see what was actually written.
VP lead us into unbelief.
John 6 28Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
30 So they asked him, "What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat."
32 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
I understand English. As I said once before, I emphasize different things. The Jews had reasons for their desire to execute Jesus. They had facts, they had scripture, they had governing values, they had an agenda, all that stuff, but their conclusion was flawed. You demonstrate just as much selective reasoning, personal bias, reluctance to consider some ideas, and programming to an agenda as anybody else who's trying to make a point. I think you would get the nod if this were a formal debate, however, I believe that NOTHING supercedes the finished works of Jesus Christ. This includes salvation, not to be repented of, incorruptible seed, and a hope that fadeth not away. This is already a done deal. This is a door God opened that no man shutteth. God allowed the innocent blood of His son Jesus to be shed for you. Aren't you thankful for anything?
Although....it could just be. . . . . The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.
I can't believe you just compared Word Wolf in any way to those who crucified Jesus....VP is clearly not Jesus and calling an evil hypocrite...an evil hypocrite is not really crucifying the innocent.
You may believe nothing supercedes the finished work of Jesus Christ....but, do you understand what that means? Clearly there is a disconnect somewhere if you think that is the Lord's handiwork in VP's life.
Apparently you all don't believe it is possible to love the sinner and hate the sin.
Another "Do you still beat your wife?" argument.
You can take The Bible, the scriptures, philosophical concepts and the like out of the discussion and the fact still remains the same. The man misused his position of authority to manipulate and abuse other people. He left a wake of misery in the process. You don't have to be of any particular "spiritual persuasion" to understand that.
Apparently you all don't believe it is possible to love the sinner and hate the sin.
sounds like just one more twi mantra..
what is your implication here? that I HATE vp?
just that we understand each other correctly:
you are saying what? Have a warm and fuzzy feeling, pleasant regard and "thankfulness" forda victer.. and at the same time despise the corruption, abuse.. thefts.. vandalism of good mens reputations.. perversion and rape..
is that it?
Maybe you could define what you mean by "love" and "hate".
Apparently you all don't believe it is possible to love the sinner and hate the sin.
An unregenerate man, who died in his sins...and took many others with him.....who not only rejected the Lord, but used GOD Almighty as a reason to sin....and I am supposed to love him how? By what action?.....Whitewashing what he did?
I am being loving to you John.....by telling you who he was....
Was Jesus being unloving when He told the Pharisees . . ..
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
VP was a Pharisee.
Oddly enough John....I rarely say anything about LCM. That is not because I think what he did was right...it was evil...but I still believe God can save him.
Take it anyway you want to take it. Common sense tells you what the man did was vile and reprehensible. I can't help it if you choose to ignore the facts.
I concur with Geisha, Saint Vic never showed any remorse for his sins, he just kept committing them. His covering them up should be good enough evidence that he knew he was doing wrong.
Why do you think people hate Charlie Manson? All these years later, and not one word of remorse for Sharon Tate and Helter Skelter. Ditto Ted Bundy.
Am I comparing Saint Vic with Charles Manson and Ted Bundy? There's no comparison: Saint Vic is worst. Manson and Bundy killed the body: Saint Vic killed the soul.
quote: I'm sorry for you that you're unable to read my full posts with comprehension,
I understand English. As I said once before, I emphasize different things. The Jews had reasons for their desire to execute Jesus. They had facts, they had scripture, they had governing values, they had an agenda, all that stuff, but their conclusion was flawed. You demonstrate just as much selective reasoning, personal bias, reluctance to consider some ideas, and programming to an agenda as anybody else who's trying to make a point. I think you would get the nod if this were a formal debate, however, I believe that NOTHING supercedes the finished works of Jesus Christ. This includes salvation, not to be repented of, incorruptible seed, and a hope that fadeth not away. This is already a done deal. This is a door God opened that no man shutteth. God allowed the innocent blood of His son Jesus to be shed for you. Aren't you thankful for anything?
This whole mess began when you started a thread as an overreaction to me saying VP was not an evil man. It's been talked to death. If you're so sure that your stand is legitimate, then why the non stop damage control? Why strain at a gnat and swallow at a camel? Why flee when no man pursueth?
You may consider eyewitness testimony from individuals, but when you conclude that "old man Wierwille never taught safe boundaries, and VP was a bully, and he set a goal in 1942 to scam people and in 1970 he would finally get his well deserved virtual harem, and he was constantly drunk on Drambuie" (that stuff tastes like those old candy cigarettes, eww), you don't KNOW all that! It's pure speculation! It's obsessive.
VPs ministry lives on. There are fellowships all over the country where people can hear the word taught just like the best of twi times. Last month 3 of our old timer's kids flew to the SF bay area for a seminar. The same people who did the seminar also do what amounts to LEAD and way homes. This weekend I'm going to attend a CG taught intermediate class. John Hendricks' CRF still has wows (lights) and corps (forget what they call that). People are fickle but God is still God. Are you really going to spend all the time you have left attacking a dead man?
Although....it could just be. . . . . The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.
I can't believe you just compared Word Wolf in any way to those who crucified Jesus....VP is clearly not Jesus and calling an evil hypocrite...an evil hypocrite is not really crucifying the innocent.
You may believe nothing supercedes the finished work of Jesus Christ....but, do you understand what that means? Clearly there is a disconnect somewhere if you think that is the Lord's handiwork in VP's life.
quote: I'm sorry for you that you're unable to read my full posts with comprehension,
I understand English.
You don't understand ALL English, because everybody ELSE has no trouble understanding my posts,
and you're saying I'm trying to "numb" a mind- instead of encourage thinking.
You see a longer post and categorically slap a label "long-winded",
and you confuse refutations of your points with "damage control."
So, sorry, you're unable to read my full posts with comprehension.
As I said once before, I emphasize different things.
Actually, you're advocating SILENCE on the subjects of evil deeds if vpw did them,
and SILENCE holding him responsible for the damage he wrought.
That's why the attempts to change the subject and go off into digressions on music
when the rest of us discuss an evil man who did evil deeds.
The Jews had reasons for their desire to execute Jesus. They had facts, they had scripture, they had governing values, they had an agenda, all that stuff, but their conclusion was flawed. You demonstrate just as much selective reasoning, personal bias, reluctance to consider some ideas, and programming to an agenda as anybody else who's trying to make a point.
I'm sorry you're unable to tell the difference between quoting Scriptures and explaining them,
and espousing their principles,
and the actions of the handful of Jews who had Jesus crucified.
It's amazing YOU'RE the one bringing up concepts like "selective reasoning, personal bias, reluctance to consider some ideas, and programming to an agenda."
It's sad you're the only one who can't see why it's amazing. And hypocritical on your own part.
I think you would get the nod if this were a formal debate, however, I believe that NOTHING supercedes the finished works of Jesus Christ. This includes salvation, not to be repented of, incorruptible seed, and a hope that fadeth not away. This is already a done deal. This is a door God opened that no man shutteth. God allowed the innocent blood of His son Jesus to be shed for you. Aren't you thankful for anything?
I'm thankful for a lot.
I don't express thankfulness to God by covering the evil deeds of evil men who prey upon innocent Christians.
We seem to be thankful in very different ways. We certainly express our thankfulness differently.
This whole mess began when you started a thread as an overreaction to me saying VP was not an evil man.
Actually, this current thread seems to highlight rather dramatically some dysfunctional thought patterns and so on.
I read an outrageous comment that I felt was overdue to be addressed from Scripture rather than from platitude-
and I did so. The discussion that followed included a DIFFERENT outrageous comment that someone else felt was
overdue to be addressed. Don't blame either of us if you make outrageous comments and people show they're ridiculous
and outrageous. If you don't want your posts refuted, post more logically or refrain from posting when you're feeling
the need to espouse a silly position. I didn't "overreact". Everybody EXCEPT YOU learned that, although you-and others-
claim we can't properly call someone "evil" because their deeds were evil, Scripture holds the opposite position.
We all gained in knowledge. (I certainly did- I didn't know there were specific verses to address that before that
thread.)
Your responses could have included things like "I was not aware the Bible said that. Thank you for increasing my
lnowledge" or anything that indicated that you'd change your mind to agree with the Bible. Instead, when faced with
saying the opposite of the Bible, you entrenched yourself deeper into your position and used all sorts of gambits
to change the subject, make this personal, etc. The rest of us, despite all the twisting, have all learned things
in the threads the past few weeks. It's a shame you haven't. You're busy trying to look like the hero and defend
vpw from even the most Biblical of charges against him.
It's been talked to death. If you're so sure that your stand is legitimate, then why the non stop damage control? Why strain at a gnat and swallow at a camel? Why flee when no man pursueth?
You're experiencing a different reality than the rest of us. Why didn't I look at someone who espoused error, and decide
to keep silent and leave it alone? Why put forth the truth when someone's putting forth the opposite?
Why post things-especially things you don't want to see posted, which means you're going to label them all
sorts of things they are not?
It's not about you or me, it's about Truth, and sometimes it's specifically about what it says in the Bible.
You may consider eyewitness testimony from individuals, but when you conclude that "old man Wierwille never taught safe boundaries, and VP was a bully, and he set a goal in 1942 to scam people and in 1970 he would finally get his well deserved virtual harem, and he was constantly drunk on Drambuie" (that stuff tastes like those old candy cigarettes, eww), you don't KNOW all that! It's pure speculation! It's obsessive.
It would be obsessive if that's all I did all day.
It's a little scary that there are people who will show up and try to defend vpw's reputation no matter how
well-documented any of his evil deeds are that are being discussed.
I find THAT obsessive. Can't face the idea the Bible calls such a man "evil"?
Can't face that his own words show his intent, down the years?
Can't face that vpw put forth that himself was some great one, when instead he was an evil man who used the
works of Christians to pretend he was producing Christian works?
I noticed that you never tried to dispute any pieces of actual HISTORY we discuss.
There's just this flat "it's speculation" after we've discussed it and documented it.
If you had something to actually support your claim, it would make sense to actually
present that rather than just make flat claims.
BTW, you're finally, at least, claiming I said what I said.
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.
2) vpw WAS a bully. Lots of people have testified to his bullying. People have known him as a bully
his entire adult life. He bullied people all through twi's history and only stopped when he was too sickly
to bully anyone anymore, not because his character improved.
3) Actually, I don't think he set a goal to scam people in 1942.
BEFORE 1942, he selected ministry as a career because he thought it would be easy.
In 1953, he found materials that could potentially be used to scam people-and his thoughts went to scamming people-
whicb he did that very year when he lied to people about Leonard's class.
vpw later scammed people and assigned a date of 1942 to his scam.
In the late 1960s, he saw some women less restrictive about sex- and his thoughts went to "how do I get them to
have sex with me?"- and he made that a long-term goal.
(He may have been planning for this through the decades, but I don't have hard evidence that his old congregation
fired him for inappropriate sexual behavior, so I'll stick with what I can clearly document.)
He never "deserved" any kind of harem, and didn't get one. He surrounded himself with young people,
and predatorially set out to single out one, then another, to victimize sexually.
If he had a "harem", he wouldn't have needed to waste all that effort.
4) He was chronically drunk, and usually on Drambuie. People who had never heard of Drambuie were sent to get
MULTIPLE BOTTLES for him for when he was coming to town for A FEW DAYS. He regularly carried a coffee mug
around which had Drambuie in it. He had whole procedures worked out on how to hide alcohol-breath.
(Put a strong mint in your mouth, break it in your mouth.) People misunderstood that, and broke mints in 1/2
to have a dish ready for him whenever he was teaching.
NONE OF THAT IS SPECULATION.
What's obsessive is to have read all of that, all the eyewitness accounts of all of those, then turn around
and say they don't exist, that vpw was great because Jesus is great and saved us all, so vpw can sin all he
wants and destroy lives and it's insignificant because he had salvation.
It's unhealthy to read the verses that explain the opposite and STILL say that, too.
VPs ministry lives on. There are fellowships all over the country where people can hear the word taught just like the best of twi times. Last month 3 of our old timer's kids flew to the SF bay area for a seminar. The same people who did the seminar also do what amounts to LEAD and way homes. This weekend I'm going to attend a CG taught intermediate class. John Hendricks' CRF still has wows (lights) and corps (forget what they call that). People are fickle but God is still God. Are you really going to spend all the time you have left attacking a dead man?
As long as people revere the DAMAGED doctrines of a damaged man (the errors like the false "LAW" of believing,
how one can exploit the Christians and it's ok because we have salvation,
the insertion of sexual perspectives on non-sexual Bible accounts,
vpw's ministry will continue to HURT people.
Many people have gotten deliverance from them, and are still Christians, still respect the Bible,
without the warped patterns of twi impeding their walk before God.
Are you really going to spend all the time you have left defending an evil dead hypocrite's legacy?
Seems to me that a righteous God wouldn`t lead some to a particular place and person proclaiming it a refuge and safe haven...and others to the same place for life altering pain... maybe even complete destruction....
This argument that *Hey, I personally benefited from twi ...therefor what happened to you is really inconsequential* has always chapped my bu tt.
It` like saying ... obviously God loved and blessed me, but apparently just didn`t give a crap about you...reminds me of a seriously disfunctional family with a really abusive parent.
I think that to label vpw as a Godly man is to continue to hide what and what he really was.
VPW was a very evil man...his doctrine ... his minstry..the people he trained led people away from God in the name of God...and that people are continuing to build lives and ministries on this deception is frustrating and very sad.
1) Old man Wierwille never taught safe boundaries. (We know what all his children said, and how they turned out.)
We know what all his children said? Really? Is it written somewhere? I'm not being contentious, I'd really like to know because I wasn't aware of any public comments by any of his children. What's wrong with "how they turned out"? J.P., I guess, has that silly S.O.W.E.R.S. thing going on, but other than that....
We know what all his children said? Really? Is it written somewhere? I'm not being contentious, I'd really like to know because I wasn't aware of any public comments by any of his children. What's wrong with "how they turned out"? J.P., I guess, has that silly S.O.W.E.R.S. thing going on, but other than that....
My understanding, from another thread, is he bragged about it in a private corps session or two.
See post #243 of the "Was VPW A Good Man" thread. (link)
Apparently you all don't believe it is possible to love the sinner and hate the sin.
you are so wrong, john.
i remember when my uncle died -- it was just a few years ago -- he had sexually abused me as a child. i fell on his coffin and begged him to tell me how he could have done this to me because i loved him so much.
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
geisha779
I am still trying to figure that one out......it has taken a long time and often painful realizations to be delivered from most of what he taught. I am not very grateful to him for that. I was in a cult....not grateful and not a great story to tell at parties or bible study for that matter. I wasted my time serving some misguided ministry when I could have been serving God....I am not very glad about that.
I am still realizing things about those teachings....I was listening to an actual Christian teacher the other night speaking about our assurance in the Lord and it dawned on me just how deceptive VP was.....He told us that SIT was "the external manifestation in the senses realm of the internal reality of the presence and the power of the HS." That we could know, that we know, that we know, because we SIT. Heaven bound and all hell could not stop us.
Well, if we put our faith in the Lord and truly do believe in our hearts....if we trust Jesus and He is Lord....really Lord, we are actually convinced....then why wouldn't we know something we believe in the deepest part of our being? We believe in our hearts....we trust Him....we give our lives to Him.....why do we need a sign? Just in case? What? I don't get it?
Well, I actually do get it.....that is unbelief. Not faith. It is the polar opposite of actual faith. 1 Corinthians 14:22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers. . . . .
People who didn't believe sought signs.....SIT was a sign to those who didn't believe. All I had to do was look at the accounts in scripture to see this......but, my head was so full of garbage from that "teacher" I couldn't even read the bible and see what was actually written.
VP lead us into unbelief.
John 6 28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
30 So they asked him, "What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat."
32 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
34 "Sir," they said, "always give us this bread."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
ha! at least they had the sense to know who to ask..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Although....it could just be. . . . . The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.
I can't believe you just compared Word Wolf in any way to those who crucified Jesus....VP is clearly not Jesus and calling an evil hypocrite...an evil hypocrite is not really crucifying the innocent.
You may believe nothing supercedes the finished work of Jesus Christ....but, do you understand what that means? Clearly there is a disconnect somewhere if you think that is the Lord's handiwork in VP's life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Apparently you all don't believe it is possible to love the sinner and hate the sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So then its okay:
to love Hitler, and hate the Holocaust?
to love Osama Bin Laden, and hate 9/11?
to love Stalin, and hate the Soviet purges?
And of course, here's your logical conclusion following that line of reasoning:
Its okay to love Satan, but hate his methods?
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Another "Do you still beat your wife?" argument.
You can take The Bible, the scriptures, philosophical concepts and the like out of the discussion and the fact still remains the same. The man misused his position of authority to manipulate and abuse other people. He left a wake of misery in the process. You don't have to be of any particular "spiritual persuasion" to understand that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I'll take that as "yes".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
sounds like just one more twi mantra..
what is your implication here? that I HATE vp?
just that we understand each other correctly:
you are saying what? Have a warm and fuzzy feeling, pleasant regard and "thankfulness" forda victer.. and at the same time despise the corruption, abuse.. thefts.. vandalism of good mens reputations.. perversion and rape..
is that it?
Maybe you could define what you mean by "love" and "hate".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Considering you dodged the question, I have to assume you think its okay to love Satan, but hate his methods.
Or is there another meaning to:
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
An unregenerate man, who died in his sins...and took many others with him.....who not only rejected the Lord, but used GOD Almighty as a reason to sin....and I am supposed to love him how? By what action?.....Whitewashing what he did?
I am being loving to you John.....by telling you who he was....
Was Jesus being unloving when He told the Pharisees . . ..
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
VP was a Pharisee.
Oddly enough John....I rarely say anything about LCM. That is not because I think what he did was right...it was evil...but I still believe God can save him.
VP already made his choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Do you walk to school or carry our lunch?
Take it anyway you want to take it. Common sense tells you what the man did was vile and reprehensible. I can't help it if you choose to ignore the facts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I concur with Geisha, Saint Vic never showed any remorse for his sins, he just kept committing them. His covering them up should be good enough evidence that he knew he was doing wrong.
Why do you think people hate Charlie Manson? All these years later, and not one word of remorse for Sharon Tate and Helter Skelter. Ditto Ted Bundy.
Am I comparing Saint Vic with Charles Manson and Ted Bundy? There's no comparison: Saint Vic is worst. Manson and Bundy killed the body: Saint Vic killed the soul.
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I asked you what we should be grateful to Saint Vic for?
Here's some more info on the subject in case you didn't get it the first time around:
The Weirwille Betrayal thread
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You don't understand ALL English, because everybody ELSE has no trouble understanding my posts,
and you're saying I'm trying to "numb" a mind- instead of encourage thinking.
You see a longer post and categorically slap a label "long-winded",
and you confuse refutations of your points with "damage control."
So, sorry, you're unable to read my full posts with comprehension.
Actually, you're advocating SILENCE on the subjects of evil deeds if vpw did them,
and SILENCE holding him responsible for the damage he wrought.
That's why the attempts to change the subject and go off into digressions on music
when the rest of us discuss an evil man who did evil deeds.
I'm sorry you're unable to tell the difference between quoting Scriptures and explaining them,
and espousing their principles,
and the actions of the handful of Jews who had Jesus crucified.
It's amazing YOU'RE the one bringing up concepts like "selective reasoning, personal bias, reluctance to consider some ideas, and programming to an agenda."
It's sad you're the only one who can't see why it's amazing. And hypocritical on your own part.
I'm thankful for a lot.
I don't express thankfulness to God by covering the evil deeds of evil men who prey upon innocent Christians.
We seem to be thankful in very different ways. We certainly express our thankfulness differently.
Actually, this current thread seems to highlight rather dramatically some dysfunctional thought patterns and so on.
I read an outrageous comment that I felt was overdue to be addressed from Scripture rather than from platitude-
and I did so. The discussion that followed included a DIFFERENT outrageous comment that someone else felt was
overdue to be addressed. Don't blame either of us if you make outrageous comments and people show they're ridiculous
and outrageous. If you don't want your posts refuted, post more logically or refrain from posting when you're feeling
the need to espouse a silly position. I didn't "overreact". Everybody EXCEPT YOU learned that, although you-and others-
claim we can't properly call someone "evil" because their deeds were evil, Scripture holds the opposite position.
We all gained in knowledge. (I certainly did- I didn't know there were specific verses to address that before that
thread.)
Your responses could have included things like "I was not aware the Bible said that. Thank you for increasing my
lnowledge" or anything that indicated that you'd change your mind to agree with the Bible. Instead, when faced with
saying the opposite of the Bible, you entrenched yourself deeper into your position and used all sorts of gambits
to change the subject, make this personal, etc. The rest of us, despite all the twisting, have all learned things
in the threads the past few weeks. It's a shame you haven't. You're busy trying to look like the hero and defend
vpw from even the most Biblical of charges against him.
You're experiencing a different reality than the rest of us. Why didn't I look at someone who espoused error, and decide
to keep silent and leave it alone? Why put forth the truth when someone's putting forth the opposite?
Why post things-especially things you don't want to see posted, which means you're going to label them all
sorts of things they are not?
It's not about you or me, it's about Truth, and sometimes it's specifically about what it says in the Bible.
It would be obsessive if that's all I did all day.
It's a little scary that there are people who will show up and try to defend vpw's reputation no matter how
well-documented any of his evil deeds are that are being discussed.
I find THAT obsessive. Can't face the idea the Bible calls such a man "evil"?
Can't face that his own words show his intent, down the years?
Can't face that vpw put forth that himself was some great one, when instead he was an evil man who used the
works of Christians to pretend he was producing Christian works?
I noticed that you never tried to dispute any pieces of actual HISTORY we discuss.
There's just this flat "it's speculation" after we've discussed it and documented it.
If you had something to actually support your claim, it would make sense to actually
present that rather than just make flat claims.
BTW, you're finally, at least, claiming I said what I said.
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.
2) vpw WAS a bully. Lots of people have testified to his bullying. People have known him as a bully
his entire adult life. He bullied people all through twi's history and only stopped when he was too sickly
to bully anyone anymore, not because his character improved.
3) Actually, I don't think he set a goal to scam people in 1942.
BEFORE 1942, he selected ministry as a career because he thought it would be easy.
In 1953, he found materials that could potentially be used to scam people-and his thoughts went to scamming people-
whicb he did that very year when he lied to people about Leonard's class.
vpw later scammed people and assigned a date of 1942 to his scam.
In the late 1960s, he saw some women less restrictive about sex- and his thoughts went to "how do I get them to
have sex with me?"- and he made that a long-term goal.
(He may have been planning for this through the decades, but I don't have hard evidence that his old congregation
fired him for inappropriate sexual behavior, so I'll stick with what I can clearly document.)
He never "deserved" any kind of harem, and didn't get one. He surrounded himself with young people,
and predatorially set out to single out one, then another, to victimize sexually.
If he had a "harem", he wouldn't have needed to waste all that effort.
4) He was chronically drunk, and usually on Drambuie. People who had never heard of Drambuie were sent to get
MULTIPLE BOTTLES for him for when he was coming to town for A FEW DAYS. He regularly carried a coffee mug
around which had Drambuie in it. He had whole procedures worked out on how to hide alcohol-breath.
(Put a strong mint in your mouth, break it in your mouth.) People misunderstood that, and broke mints in 1/2
to have a dish ready for him whenever he was teaching.
NONE OF THAT IS SPECULATION.
What's obsessive is to have read all of that, all the eyewitness accounts of all of those, then turn around
and say they don't exist, that vpw was great because Jesus is great and saved us all, so vpw can sin all he
wants and destroy lives and it's insignificant because he had salvation.
It's unhealthy to read the verses that explain the opposite and STILL say that, too.
As long as people revere the DAMAGED doctrines of a damaged man (the errors like the false "LAW" of believing,
how one can exploit the Christians and it's ok because we have salvation,
the insertion of sexual perspectives on non-sexual Bible accounts,
vpw's ministry will continue to HURT people.
Many people have gotten deliverance from them, and are still Christians, still respect the Bible,
without the warped patterns of twi impeding their walk before God.
Are you really going to spend all the time you have left defending an evil dead hypocrite's legacy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Exactly...destroyed the souls...
Seems to me that a righteous God wouldn`t lead some to a particular place and person proclaiming it a refuge and safe haven...and others to the same place for life altering pain... maybe even complete destruction....
This argument that *Hey, I personally benefited from twi ...therefor what happened to you is really inconsequential* has always chapped my bu tt.
It` like saying ... obviously God loved and blessed me, but apparently just didn`t give a crap about you...reminds me of a seriously disfunctional family with a really abusive parent.
I think that to label vpw as a Godly man is to continue to hide what and what he really was.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
VPW was a very evil man...his doctrine ... his minstry..the people he trained led people away from God in the name of God...and that people are continuing to build lives and ministries on this deception is frustrating and very sad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
We know what all his children said? Really? Is it written somewhere? I'm not being contentious, I'd really like to know because I wasn't aware of any public comments by any of his children. What's wrong with "how they turned out"? J.P., I guess, has that silly S.O.W.E.R.S. thing going on, but other than that....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
My understanding, from another thread, is he bragged about it in a private corps session or two.
See post #243 of the "Was VPW A Good Man" thread. (link)
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
you are so wrong, john.
i remember when my uncle died -- it was just a few years ago -- he had sexually abused me as a child. i fell on his coffin and begged him to tell me how he could have done this to me because i loved him so much.
that's all i have to say right now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
what johniam is really saying-
'love the sinner and participate in the sin cause they do, and it's ok to approve it'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Who said I had to love the dirty old horn-dog?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Love the sinner hate the sin carried to its logical conclusion becomes love Satan hate his methods.
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Love the sinner, hate the sin..
you know.. I don't expect "love".
one really can't.. even if one is a "nice guy".. or less harmful than others..
it's really an unrealistic expectation..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Unrealistic for us clinicly normal people, but for egomaniacs and major narcissist its:
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink 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.