quote:My view is that genuine healing comes from God and Christ, not forums on Greasespot Cafe. "He sent his word, and healed them". Forums on GS are full of varying opinions and debate, and as long as folks like myself are respectful to others, we are (or should be) able to post dissenting opinions without worrying about offending others. Those are the GS rules.
You are right, healing does come from the God, but sometimes you have to realize that talking about things helps people to realease also. The Word of God does not refute this.
I guess that you should consider this thread a party you haven't been invited to.
Sorry, I'm not meaning to sound rude. Even if you are within the guidelines of GS, you are not helping. Consider that. The jist of this thread is not the things you are talking about. If you are trying to make a point to help these women, then fine. But you aren't. Can you see that?
quote:Originally posted by QamiQazi (on another thread):
What do we know?
We know that Dr. Wierwille, (self-appointed) man of God, teacher of God's Word, example, minister, "father in the Word," had many illicit relations with women.
We know that at least several occasions those relations were reported to be coercive. All, every last one of those extra-marital relations were inappropriate, unethical, unconscionably wrong for a Christian minister.
Did some of the women desire sex with him? It's possible. Let's say "yes, it's perfectly reasonable that some of the women were attracted to his age, status, power, charisma, personality, "spirituality," or je ne sais quois. They wanted him, baby! "Shag me daddy!" they would scream as the bus would rock back and forth and up and down on its groaning springs and wheezing shocks.
How many women would that account for? Two? Three? How many nuts joined the ministry? Plenty. So it's possible he had a few.
I don't think he wanted them. I think he wanted the young, the innocent, the virtuous, the devoted, the good ones. They were more satisfying. He knew he was good if he could get one of them alone. He had help. He used alcohol, and in all liklihood, drugs to get his way. Anyway, alcohol is a drug. Who would expect their minister would use it to get into their pants? Who would expect him to use God's Word to get into their pants? That he also used intimidation and other kinds of pressure is hardly worth mentioning.
What's upsetting to me, QQ, is that the things you said above are EXACTLY what I've been saying, coupled with the repeated insistence that Wierwille's behavior is inexcusable no matter what, and yet you come in and accuse me of enabling the enabler. For what? For a point you CONCEDE? Holy happy horse hockey!
So I reject, again, the ridiculous assertion that I am enabling enablers. I have said NOTHING that you didn't say above. I enable the enablers no more than you just did. (But please, never, EVER write "shag me daddy" again. I almost puked when I read that).
Your question regarding the "yeah-buts" is valid. If I answer it, it will be on that thread.
And to those who think oldies and I should not be participating in this conversation, all I can say is, hod the conversation in a private topic or by e-mail if you don't want anyone butting into it. If I'm off-topic, then you have a point. But to say we shouldn't be here, that we weren't invited, that we should stay out of this, is completely out of line in an open forum. Oldiesman has as much right to post his view, or to challenge yours, as you have.
Wayfer Not: you say oldiesman is not helping these women. Can I turn that around on you? What are you doing to help oldiesman shake off any inappropriate admiration of Wierwille. This man who has such a fondness for TWI-1 is slowly but surely seeing that there were things that went on, even then, that were spiritually repugnant. Telling him to go away won't bring him any closer to our point of view: that Wierwille's flaws were far deeper than Oldies was ever willing to concede.
Accuse me of enabling an enabler. Go ahead.
But I think some of you (not all) are missing a golden opportunity to help someone who is willing to listen, if you are willing to talk to him without resorting to those asterisks.
As is frequently the case, I hope you are right and I am wrong. A certain poster has struck me as being particularly unctous for over 3 years. And I hadn't noticed any glimmer of light entering his skull. My hat is off to you for perceiving it and to him for awakening. I will await further developments. Thank you for explaining your position - not about the abuse (which was always clear) but about your attititude toward him. You really did have me perplexed, but now you've enlightened me. Keep on thinking the best of others.
Your thread has awaken again for me to realise the pain body that keeps on entering the awareness of now and to go to it and face it and say what should be done about it?
Should all know what has happenned in TWI according to personal experiences as yours and others contributed to this this thread of yours?
YES, ALL SHOULD KNOW... as long as you are willing to expose in light of the responses drawn to your words...
I do beleive you excathedra... and mine heart does change its rhythm of thought the MOG you encountered compared to the MOG I was publically introduced...thank you ...
i cry too... but i suppose not as much as you... and then maybe even more... and then even maybe there is not even a tear of a drop in our eyes the resolve to expose/agree a ministry of such manipulating behavior to jade the truth .... in other words ..." This is what happenned...beleive it or not!"...
And i know its not all about you, given the response to your thread...
I am thankFULL Your sharing excathedra , which generated respones that would have never been.......
I personally, shared what happened to me because Water Garden asked why nobody confronted VP and I knew I did. I knew some people would not believe me. It is okay.
I am sure Ex and Hope and now Water Garden know not everyone will/is going to believe them. It is okay. Olds can not handle all of this right now. I accept that.
To those of you who needed to hear what we had to say GREAT! I am glad we said it.
I do not think the other girls are hurt by a few folks that still have a hard time with all of this. Now if Olds said we enticed VP then I'd go a few 'rounds. He is just struggling with VPW. Heck, VPW and his class probably did marvelous things for OLDS. It did for me.
I saw the idiot naked and it still was hard for me to seperate "this is the guy who taught PFAL" from "this is the naked weirdo in the coach."
Olds, ask God to show you and he will unfold things to you as you can receive them. I am not offended by your questions.
I do know at least one woman that did like VPW. She was an early corps person an Anna Nicole type whose vagina saw more action then the Gulf war. She told me she thought VPW was attractive and she was with him often until he passed her along to Howard. But as QQ (I think) said even if there was one that wanted it, it does not excuse the 100 or so that did not.
So Olds. good luck figuring it all out. I will not try to convince you of any thing. But if I post around your unbelief please do not take offense, I just think your questions have already been answered.
Love to all those that have been through this, believe us who have - when you have not, and those that are just now realizing something in TWI was wrong for a very long time.
Peace
Dot Matrix
[This message was edited by Dot Matrix on February 02, 2003 at 15:14.]
Does Oldiesman have the right to post what he does? Sure, but having the right to do something doesn?t make it the right thing to do. It?s not a matter of rights. It?s a matter of respect. Sometimes the best thing to do is to stay out of some discussions. This one is not about Oldiesman?s dismantling or affirming his belief system. It?s about ministerial abuse.
Excathedra started this thread because:
quote:Originally posted by excathedra:
someone on that other thread referred to wierwille's sin as adultery
what i'm saying it was SO MUCH WORSE THAN THIS
She referred to THIS ARTICLE, from which she quoted the following:
quote:From ?Soul Stealing?
Even when adultery is involved, unfaithfullness is not the primary issue. I have found that ministers enter into romantic or sexual relationships with parishioners primarily because there is an imbalance of power between them at the outset and because they need to reinforce and heighten the intensity of that power dynamic. This is need is driven by internal forces and Is reinforced by societaly conditioned expectations that women will function as a nurturing, sexual servant class. [Emphasis mine.]
Notice that neither Excathedra nor the author of the article said ?always? or ?all ministers.?
Referring specifically to Wierwille, excathedra wrote:
quote:but wait he was even worse
when he knew you thought of him as a father figure, i mean this now, he still felt it was okay to prey on you
it wasn't like a moment of passion or mistake or getting carried away, you know what i mean
it was thought thru, planned, calculated, like with very little emotion or feeling for the person (me)
In follow-ups she said that she was just trying to describe her experience.
Oldiesman came along and quoted one sentence from the article: ?As with rape, a pastor's sexual or romantic involvement with a parishioner is not primarily a matter of sex or sexuality but of power and control.? (Emphasis mine.) He then took off on the possibility that a pastor might just be horny, which has absolutely nothing to do with the thesis of the article or what anyone else had been discussing on the thread. He went further by saying:
quote:Originally posted by oldiesman:
I'd like to see the definitive proof that every sexual relation of a pastor/perishioner is about power and control.
NOBODY claimed that!
In a later post, oldiesman said:
quote:This is the premise of this entire argument, that its ALWAYS about power and control in the male.
That is just not true. The article never said that and no one had said that on the thread, either.
Radar O?Reilly replied to Oldiesman?s statement by saying, ?It is ALWAYS ABOUT POWER when the aggressor is in POWER over the victim.? Also, ?Maybe it isn't about power to the Aggressor (man or woman) but it is about power to the VICTIM (man or woman) and that is the perspective that counts.?
Oldiesman came back with this:
quote:What you seem to be suggesting is, ALL the women in TWI who had sex with ministers didn't have the option to just say ?no?. They are ALL victims, regardless of whether they wanted it or not. They are ALL victims (of rape?).
NOBODY suggested that!
After some discussion about why abused women sometimes don?t say anything and, specifically, why women Wierwille abused didn?t say anything or weren?t heard, if they did, Oldiesman said this:
quote:Another possible reason why some women never said anything:
3. They knew they had sinned by voluntarily committing adultery with VPW, and they kept their sin with VPW in the lockbox. They confessed their sin to God, asked for his forgiveness, and the matter for all intents and purposes, was forgiven and forgotten.
The subject was NOT voluntary adulteresses! It was abused women. In the context of the discussion, Oldiesman tacitly accused at least some abused women of being voluntary adulteresses! You wonder why I called him an ***? (That will be censored. The word is A-S-S.)
I?m going to write that one again, in bold-face:
Oldiesman accused some abused women of being voluntary adulteresses!
Excathedra replied, ?you are a fooking ashhole.? IMO, given what Oldiesman had just written, that was pretty darn mild.
Then you came along, Rafael. Your first post in this thread:
quote:Originally posted by Rafael 1969:
excath:
I'm trying to be real delicate here. Let's put your experience aside. Okay? The following question has NOTHING to do with YOU or what YOU went through. It is not directed at YOU. Okay?
Would you agree that at least SOME PEOPLE might possibly fit the description oldies presented? SOME? Not all. Not even a majority. Let's say, four people. Would you agree that of the many many people who engaged in adultery with Wierwille, that it's possible about FOUR of them were Wierwille worshippers who were more than happy to shower their favor on him?
I think SOME people fit that description. I think that does NOT distract from VPW's responsibility as a Christian, and particularly as a Christian minister, to refrain from such behavior. So it doesn't absolve him, but it does lay the tiniest bit of blame on those women, however few they may have been, who looked at Wierwille's seduction as a blessing rather than a curse.
In any event, I think Oldies is a nice guy, and I know you're hurting when you call him the things you called him.
Sorry for butting in.
First of all, you?re damn right she was hurting! Oldiesman had just implied that she might be a slut who had willingly sinned with Wierwille. (No, he didn?t say that but he sure made it clear that it was a possibility.) Secondly, the thread was not and is not about people who ?might possibly fit the description oldies presented.? Thirdly, this: ?Would you agree that of the many many people who engaged in adultery with Wierwille?? completely ignores the WHOLE FRIGGING POINT of the thread, which is that what Wierwille did to HIS VICTIMS was much worse than engaging in adultery. Even more importantly, it is a SLAP IN THE FACE to Excathedra and Wierwille?s other VICTIMS for you to say that they ?engaged in adultery with Wierwille.?
In your defense of Oldiesman, you inadvertently pointed out the reason behind his posts: ?So it doesn't absolve him, but it does lay the tiniest bit of blame on those women, however few they may have been, who looked at Wierwille's seduction as a blessing rather than a curse.? Actually, it does more than that. The most important thing is shifting blame away from Wierwille. That can?t be done with facts, so it?s done by concentrating on the blame that other people might bear. However, since this thread is about real victims, not ?possible? consenting adulteresses, much of the blame is shifted to Wierwille?s VICTIMS, denials and statements of noble intentions notwithstanding.
Later you wrote:
quote:And it still doesn't excuse Wierwille, but it robs those very few possible people of "victim" status. Is that so unreasonable?
What is unreasonable is your failure to see that this is not about ?very few possible people.? It?s about many real people and them trying to discuss the nature of their real victimization, what led to it, and how to deal with it afterwards. The dealing with it includes emotional healing but it also includes learning how to strengthen themselves against future victimization and how to help others, including their children, to avoid becoming victims themselves or to guard against further victimization if they have already become victims.
Then Oldiesman popped off with this:
quote:This is the part that I still think hasn't been proven yet, that ALL ministers in TWI were sexual predators who weren't merely interested in (unacceptably) satisfying their sexual needs, but much more than that had this evil mind set that made their actions equal to committing rape on their prey.
NOBODY proposed anything like this.
His claims of sincerity and objectivity notwithstanding, Oldiesman continues to distort, pick nits that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion, cast ?possible? blame on ?possible? people who might not be victims, in order to distract from or completely sidetrack the discussion, which is about real people and real victimization, and will hopefully lead to real recovery and real prevention.
[This message was edited by Long Gone on February 02, 2003 at 17:10.]
Thanks for the summary of this thread Long Gone. Somehow knowing what excathedra has gone through over the years on these boards makes me ultra-sensitive and I began to wonder if I was reading too much into certain posts. Your summary tells me that I wasn't being unreasonable.
Long Gone, that was very effective. oldiesman, do you see what you are doing, or did you already know?
Now somebody just show me where it says that Hitler killed all the Jews. I just don't believe it. Prove to me that every Nazi is a murderer, or that they all directly participated in genocide. Can anyone offer any objective proof? Did anyone confront Hitler at the time? If not, why now? Why does it come up when he can't defend himself? Why can't people see what he did for national pride and get over his imperfections?
oldiesman, what is the difference between that, and what you are doing?
quote:First of all, you?re damn right she was hurting! Oldiesman had just implied that she might be a slut who had willingly sinned with Wierwille. (No, he didn?t say that but he sure made it clear that it was a possibility.)
LongGone where do you get that from? I never, ever suggested ANY woman was a slut, especially Excathedra, or even those who might willingly have had sex with VPW. And my argument never suggested it was about Excathedra's actual experience but my doubts about the article she was quoting. Excathedra explained her situation on another thread before this one, that she was in a moving bus and couldn't just leave; so after I heard that, the thought never crossed my mind that she wasn't a victim; as a matter of fact, I think I admitted on another thread that I thought she was VPW's sex slave. That's very bad. So I have no doubt that Excathedra was taken advantage of big time. Ok?
quote:oldiesman, what is the difference between that, and what you are doing?
QQ, I see what you're saying, but really, do you have to bring Hitler up again? Hitler was a military dictator who presided over the murdering of millions of people. In our world he's probably the worst tyrant who ever drew breath. And you're comparing him to VPW?
So let's say VPW raped 10 women, and had voluntary sex with 200 willing women, during his 40 years of pastoring. For the record, I think that's just as bad as if the numbers were reversed. ok? He blew it big time.
word battles are not my thing and i also get emotional. i try not to.... but hey....
it's difficult when someone accuses me of wanting attention, poor me victim, and it's also hard when people want to dissect what i say, it's like (to me, my very own feelings) dissecting "me"
anyhow, thanks again
one more thing, how many ministers do you know who ask their female missionaries how they are going to keep their vaginas tender and sweet while they are in bible school ?
dot, you have such a better memory than i, i had forgotten some of that sheet out of that basturd's mouth
quote:oldiesman, what is the difference between that, and what you are doing?
QQ, I see what you're saying, but really, do you have to bring Hitler up again? Hitler was a military dictator who presided over the murdering of millions of people. In our world he's probably the worst tyrant who ever drew breath. And you're comparing him to VPW?
So let's say VPW raped 10 women, and had voluntary sex with 200 willing women, during his 40 years of pastoring. For the record, I think that's just as bad as if the numbers were reversed. ok? He blew it big time.
I invoke Hitler because he is the archetype of evil for our age. Evil is evil. Hitler's ultimate example minimizes the tempation to equivocate, and makes for a vivid illustration. I do not equate the two, other than they were both servants of evil. Hitler was a world-class devil. Dr. Wierwille was only the local talent.
I appreciate your own concession oldiesman, but when somebody forgot to rewind the tapes for session 12, that was "blowing it big time." Dr. Wierwille did not "blow it big time" oldiesman. Dr. Wierwille was a seducer, a deceiver, a sexual predator, a molester, a callous, cold-blooded, serial sex-abuser of Christian women, which he did (as he told the women) in the name of God. That's right!! Would you really call that "blowing it big time?" Doesn't really cover it, does it?
quote:So let's say VPW raped 10 women, and had voluntary sex with 200 willing women, during his 40 years of pastoring. For the record, I think that's just as bad as if the numbers were reversed.
When I left TWI, after the fall of Martindale, I did not believe the stuff about VPW either. It took me some time to accept what he did and come to terms with it. It pulled the rug out from under me because it left me questioning my entire belief system.
I think you done good Oldies. It is not easy to deal with this stuff. VPW hurt women, there is no doubt about that and he hurt them badly. He also hurt the men. He took your trust and he used it. I get where you are coming from and how hard this is for you. As I also understand how hard it is for Excathedra and Dot.
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
excathedra, it is odd. I'm glad you mentioned it, because I noticed it too.
oldiesman, "let's say Hitler killed ten Jews, and only insulted another six million during his administration. For the record, I think that's just as bad as if the numbers were reversed."
What is going through your mind when you invent such a ratio? If it's just as bad, what is the point? Are you trying to say that after 200 the guy was on such a roll he didn't notice a few of them said "no?" Is that your point? You seem to view Dr. Wierwille as God's stud for our day and our time. Is that your point? The women of the kingdom belong to the king?
oldiesman, I remember a poster who was very defensive of Dr. Wierwille because he was himself accused of improper (or criminal) sexual activity, and while there was little dispute about the facts, only he felt he was justified by mitigating circumstances. In defending Dr. Wierwille, he was sort of defending his own choices and behavior. Are you that poster? Is that your point? Is this about you, and where you've put it?
Perhaps I should stay out of this thread, however there is something I want to say
1. Sorry to any and all that fell victim to Wierwille's wolf.............none of you deserved ANY of the teatment that an a-s-s like VPW heaped upon you.
2. A "pastor" tends to his flock, with tenderness................NOT p***k it to a "death" of a thousand memories
I am to sleepy to go tit for tat or point for point yet understand this is what it is like when anyone accused anyone of any wrongdoing in the way.
his side, her side, I think ,I knew and I knew when people are not noble when it comes to kissing one another ***. or being honest or even remembering to keep the facts straight.
Our personal dealings and thoughts on matters will always have a different perspective and not everyone is right or good.
Some I dare say alot of people were so caught up in the cult, pain was not even an option any more personly or anyone eles.
Excuse and reproof took the place of reality or truth.
Lots of anger was involved .
Gee why didnt someone report it?
Why wasnt something done?
Well if you read this post and how serious people take their positions and then flip and change and then wonder what it is all about.
That is/was the way as well.
only people. people who had serious emotions and a clear agenda of what purpose was.
At the time I thought I had soemthing to lose like olds does now so how could I blame him for clinging to it?
I do understand oldesman.
I find it ironic it is the same attitude that allowed the abuse to run rapant.
not you .
I think we are all guitly of it to some degree honestly.
lets get well.
QC
ok you are asking oldesman if he abused woman in the way.
well he can answer you but if anyone did do ya think they would confess here?
really?
That is another trick from hell blame the one who question the status quo with some accusation and the crowd will flock you to hero status.
this is just ridiculas.
granted your trying to be a valiant man and come to a woman defense I am guessing ex, is strong enough to account for herself. or not, so this is how the game is played and after years of it
people truly hated one another in the way.
No one wanted to hear anyone eles crap.
it is easier to be silent.
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 02, 2003 at 20:28.]
mj---less rambling, more coherence. Try typing less and saying more, pretty please... :)-->
oldiesman has been struggling with the SAME info for plus-or-minus 3 years...and it's all old info. One can check out other sources, add it up, do the math--it ain't rocket science, for cripes sake!!
I came to WayDale in the first year it was up; spring of 99, I think, after lurking at Trancechat first. It wasn't til a year after I came to WayDale that I finally faced up to it--Vic was a stinkin' pedophile pervert. C'mon, who on here in his 50s and 60s is gonna be lookin to 15, 16, 21, 22 year olds for sex outside of marriage??? get real--God nor the Bible condone or excuse it--that aint blowin it, that's rollin in it and lovin every minute of it!!!
Hey Bible fans--what's it say about CONTINUING willfully in sin once delivered??...GOD FORBID!!!! Now if God forbids, how happy is He with those that decide to stay in it, I ask you??? speak up, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
43
17
23
32
Popular Days
Jan 29
100
Feb 3
48
Feb 2
36
Feb 4
22
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 43 posts
Raf 17 posts
oldiesman 23 posts
Dot Matrix 32 posts
Popular Days
Jan 29 2003
100 posts
Feb 3 2003
48 posts
Feb 2 2003
36 posts
Feb 4 2003
22 posts
Nottawayfer
Oldies Man:
You are right, healing does come from the God, but sometimes you have to realize that talking about things helps people to realease also. The Word of God does not refute this.
I guess that you should consider this thread a party you haven't been invited to.
Sorry, I'm not meaning to sound rude. Even if you are within the guidelines of GS, you are not helping. Consider that. The jist of this thread is not the things you are talking about. If you are trying to make a point to help these women, then fine. But you aren't. Can you see that?
There once was a girl from Nantucket....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
oops something weird happened on my edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What's upsetting to me, QQ, is that the things you said above are EXACTLY what I've been saying, coupled with the repeated insistence that Wierwille's behavior is inexcusable no matter what, and yet you come in and accuse me of enabling the enabler. For what? For a point you CONCEDE? Holy happy horse hockey!
So I reject, again, the ridiculous assertion that I am enabling enablers. I have said NOTHING that you didn't say above. I enable the enablers no more than you just did. (But please, never, EVER write "shag me daddy" again. I almost puked when I read that).
Your question regarding the "yeah-buts" is valid. If I answer it, it will be on that thread.
And to those who think oldies and I should not be participating in this conversation, all I can say is, hod the conversation in a private topic or by e-mail if you don't want anyone butting into it. If I'm off-topic, then you have a point. But to say we shouldn't be here, that we weren't invited, that we should stay out of this, is completely out of line in an open forum. Oldiesman has as much right to post his view, or to challenge yours, as you have.
Wayfer Not: you say oldiesman is not helping these women. Can I turn that around on you? What are you doing to help oldiesman shake off any inappropriate admiration of Wierwille. This man who has such a fondness for TWI-1 is slowly but surely seeing that there were things that went on, even then, that were spiritually repugnant. Telling him to go away won't bring him any closer to our point of view: that Wierwille's flaws were far deeper than Oldies was ever willing to concede.
Accuse me of enabling an enabler. Go ahead.
But I think some of you (not all) are missing a golden opportunity to help someone who is willing to listen, if you are willing to talk to him without resorting to those asterisks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange Cat
Rafael,
As is frequently the case, I hope you are right and I am wrong. A certain poster has struck me as being particularly unctous for over 3 years. And I hadn't noticed any glimmer of light entering his skull. My hat is off to you for perceiving it and to him for awakening. I will await further developments. Thank you for explaining your position - not about the abuse (which was always clear) but about your attititude toward him. You really did have me perplexed, but now you've enlightened me. Keep on thinking the best of others.
Orange Cat color>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Hey, I could be wrong too, but that's really up to oldies.
I've been speaking about him like he's not in the room, for which I apologize.
Bottom line for me is, I really think he's a nice guy and if you guys would communicate with him, rather than at him, it might help everyone involved.
As a matter of fact, that's good advice all around (for myself included). I think I'll tape it to my keyboard.
The Living Epistles Society
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
excathedra
mon ami...
Your thread has awaken again for me to realise the pain body that keeps on entering the awareness of now and to go to it and face it and say what should be done about it?
Should all know what has happenned in TWI according to personal experiences as yours and others contributed to this this thread of yours?
YES, ALL SHOULD KNOW... as long as you are willing to expose in light of the responses drawn to your words...
I do beleive you excathedra... and mine heart does change its rhythm of thought the MOG you encountered compared to the MOG I was publically introduced...thank you ...
i cry too... but i suppose not as much as you... and then maybe even more... and then even maybe there is not even a tear of a drop in our eyes the resolve to expose/agree a ministry of such manipulating behavior to jade the truth .... in other words ..." This is what happenned...beleive it or not!"...
And i know its not all about you, given the response to your thread...
I am thankFULL Your sharing excathedra , which generated respones that would have never been.......
mon ami
steven
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
You'all
I personally, shared what happened to me because Water Garden asked why nobody confronted VP and I knew I did. I knew some people would not believe me. It is okay.
I am sure Ex and Hope and now Water Garden know not everyone will/is going to believe them. It is okay. Olds can not handle all of this right now. I accept that.
To those of you who needed to hear what we had to say GREAT! I am glad we said it.
I do not think the other girls are hurt by a few folks that still have a hard time with all of this. Now if Olds said we enticed VP then I'd go a few 'rounds. He is just struggling with VPW. Heck, VPW and his class probably did marvelous things for OLDS. It did for me.
I saw the idiot naked and it still was hard for me to seperate "this is the guy who taught PFAL" from "this is the naked weirdo in the coach."
Olds, ask God to show you and he will unfold things to you as you can receive them. I am not offended by your questions.
I do know at least one woman that did like VPW. She was an early corps person an Anna Nicole type whose vagina saw more action then the Gulf war. She told me she thought VPW was attractive and she was with him often until he passed her along to Howard. But as QQ (I think) said even if there was one that wanted it, it does not excuse the 100 or so that did not.
So Olds. good luck figuring it all out. I will not try to convince you of any thing. But if I post around your unbelief please do not take offense, I just think your questions have already been answered.
Love to all those that have been through this, believe us who have - when you have not, and those that are just now realizing something in TWI was wrong for a very long time.
Peace
Dot Matrix
[This message was edited by Dot Matrix on February 02, 2003 at 15:14.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Does Oldiesman have the right to post what he does? Sure, but having the right to do something doesn?t make it the right thing to do. It?s not a matter of rights. It?s a matter of respect. Sometimes the best thing to do is to stay out of some discussions. This one is not about Oldiesman?s dismantling or affirming his belief system. It?s about ministerial abuse.
Excathedra started this thread because:
She referred to THIS ARTICLE, from which she quoted the following:
Notice that neither Excathedra nor the author of the article said ?always? or ?all ministers.?
Referring specifically to Wierwille, excathedra wrote:
In follow-ups she said that she was just trying to describe her experience.Oldiesman came along and quoted one sentence from the article: ?As with rape, a pastor's sexual or romantic involvement with a parishioner is not primarily a matter of sex or sexuality but of power and control.? (Emphasis mine.) He then took off on the possibility that a pastor might just be horny, which has absolutely nothing to do with the thesis of the article or what anyone else had been discussing on the thread. He went further by saying:
NOBODY claimed that!In a later post, oldiesman said:
That is just not true. The article never said that and no one had said that on the thread, either.Radar O?Reilly replied to Oldiesman?s statement by saying, ?It is ALWAYS ABOUT POWER when the aggressor is in POWER over the victim.? Also, ?Maybe it isn't about power to the Aggressor (man or woman) but it is about power to the VICTIM (man or woman) and that is the perspective that counts.?
Oldiesman came back with this:
NOBODY suggested that!After some discussion about why abused women sometimes don?t say anything and, specifically, why women Wierwille abused didn?t say anything or weren?t heard, if they did, Oldiesman said this:
The subject was NOT voluntary adulteresses! It was abused women. In the context of the discussion, Oldiesman tacitly accused at least some abused women of being voluntary adulteresses! You wonder why I called him an ***? (That will be censored. The word is A-S-S.)
I?m going to write that one again, in bold-face:
Oldiesman accused some abused women of being voluntary adulteresses!
Excathedra replied, ?you are a fooking ashhole.? IMO, given what Oldiesman had just written, that was pretty darn mild.
Then you came along, Rafael. Your first post in this thread:
First of all, you?re damn right she was hurting! Oldiesman had just implied that she might be a slut who had willingly sinned with Wierwille. (No, he didn?t say that but he sure made it clear that it was a possibility.) Secondly, the thread was not and is not about people who ?might possibly fit the description oldies presented.? Thirdly, this: ?Would you agree that of the many many people who engaged in adultery with Wierwille?? completely ignores the WHOLE FRIGGING POINT of the thread, which is that what Wierwille did to HIS VICTIMS was much worse than engaging in adultery. Even more importantly, it is a SLAP IN THE FACE to Excathedra and Wierwille?s other VICTIMS for you to say that they ?engaged in adultery with Wierwille.?
In your defense of Oldiesman, you inadvertently pointed out the reason behind his posts: ?So it doesn't absolve him, but it does lay the tiniest bit of blame on those women, however few they may have been, who looked at Wierwille's seduction as a blessing rather than a curse.? Actually, it does more than that. The most important thing is shifting blame away from Wierwille. That can?t be done with facts, so it?s done by concentrating on the blame that other people might bear. However, since this thread is about real victims, not ?possible? consenting adulteresses, much of the blame is shifted to Wierwille?s VICTIMS, denials and statements of noble intentions notwithstanding.
Later you wrote:
What is unreasonable is your failure to see that this is not about ?very few possible people.? It?s about many real people and them trying to discuss the nature of their real victimization, what led to it, and how to deal with it afterwards. The dealing with it includes emotional healing but it also includes learning how to strengthen themselves against future victimization and how to help others, including their children, to avoid becoming victims themselves or to guard against further victimization if they have already become victims.
Then Oldiesman popped off with this:
NOBODY proposed anything like this.
His claims of sincerity and objectivity notwithstanding, Oldiesman continues to distort, pick nits that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion, cast ?possible? blame on ?possible? people who might not be victims, in order to distract from or completely sidetrack the discussion, which is about real people and real victimization, and will hopefully lead to real recovery and real prevention.
[This message was edited by Long Gone on February 02, 2003 at 17:10.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Gosh Long Gone
Seeing it all laid out like that I guess I am not so understanding of Olds.
He seems to change the words people say and then gripe about them and it is not what is being said.
Thanks Long Gone
Olds -- Shame on you! Tssk Tssk! Are you just trying to cause trouble? Cause laid out like it is above sure does make you seem caustic.
Enough of all this, I am off this thread.
God Bless. Ex thanks for having the courage to start this thread, Hope thanks for your bringing up Marsha, Water Garden glad you could finally unload,
to all those that stand up for those of us that lived through the VP nightmare -- Thank you so much.
For those that do not get it -- I hope someday you do.
For those that just want to hurt people for telling the truth -- nothing we can say will help you.
Dot Matrix
[This message was edited by Dot Matrix on February 02, 2003 at 17:03.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange Cat
Thanks for the summary of this thread Long Gone. Somehow knowing what excathedra has gone through over the years on these boards makes me ultra-sensitive and I began to wonder if I was reading too much into certain posts. Your summary tells me that I wasn't being unreasonable.
Orange Cat color>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
QamiQazi
Long Gone, that was very effective. oldiesman, do you see what you are doing, or did you already know?
Now somebody just show me where it says that Hitler killed all the Jews. I just don't believe it. Prove to me that every Nazi is a murderer, or that they all directly participated in genocide. Can anyone offer any objective proof? Did anyone confront Hitler at the time? If not, why now? Why does it come up when he can't defend himself? Why can't people see what he did for national pride and get over his imperfections?
oldiesman, what is the difference between that, and what you are doing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
LongGone where do you get that from? I never, ever suggested ANY woman was a slut, especially Excathedra, or even those who might willingly have had sex with VPW. And my argument never suggested it was about Excathedra's actual experience but my doubts about the article she was quoting. Excathedra explained her situation on another thread before this one, that she was in a moving bus and couldn't just leave; so after I heard that, the thought never crossed my mind that she wasn't a victim; as a matter of fact, I think I admitted on another thread that I thought she was VPW's sex slave. That's very bad. So I have no doubt that Excathedra was taken advantage of big time. Ok?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
QQ, I see what you're saying, but really, do you have to bring Hitler up again? Hitler was a military dictator who presided over the murdering of millions of people. In our world he's probably the worst tyrant who ever drew breath. And you're comparing him to VPW?
So let's say VPW raped 10 women, and had voluntary sex with 200 willing women, during his 40 years of pastoring. For the record, I think that's just as bad as if the numbers were reversed. ok? He blew it big time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
a very heartfelt thank you
what else can i say ?
word battles are not my thing and i also get emotional. i try not to.... but hey....
it's difficult when someone accuses me of wanting attention, poor me victim, and it's also hard when people want to dissect what i say, it's like (to me, my very own feelings) dissecting "me"
anyhow, thanks again
one more thing, how many ministers do you know who ask their female missionaries how they are going to keep their vaginas tender and sweet while they are in bible school ?
dot, you have such a better memory than i, i had forgotten some of that sheet out of that basturd's mouth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
for the record oldies, i don't agree with you, but i am not up to debate
Link to comment
Share on other sites
QamiQazi
I invoke Hitler because he is the archetype of evil for our age. Evil is evil. Hitler's ultimate example minimizes the tempation to equivocate, and makes for a vivid illustration. I do not equate the two, other than they were both servants of evil. Hitler was a world-class devil. Dr. Wierwille was only the local talent.
I appreciate your own concession oldiesman, but when somebody forgot to rewind the tapes for session 12, that was "blowing it big time." Dr. Wierwille did not "blow it big time" oldiesman. Dr. Wierwille was a seducer, a deceiver, a sexual predator, a molester, a callous, cold-blooded, serial sex-abuser of Christian women, which he did (as he told the women) in the name of God. That's right!! Would you really call that "blowing it big time?" Doesn't really cover it, does it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
this sounds very odd to me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Oldies,
When I left TWI, after the fall of Martindale, I did not believe the stuff about VPW either. It took me some time to accept what he did and come to terms with it. It pulled the rug out from under me because it left me questioning my entire belief system.
I think you done good Oldies. It is not easy to deal with this stuff. VPW hurt women, there is no doubt about that and he hurt them badly. He also hurt the men. He took your trust and he used it. I get where you are coming from and how hard this is for you. As I also understand how hard it is for Excathedra and Dot.
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
QamiQazi
excathedra, it is odd. I'm glad you mentioned it, because I noticed it too.
oldiesman, "let's say Hitler killed ten Jews, and only insulted another six million during his administration. For the record, I think that's just as bad as if the numbers were reversed."
What is going through your mind when you invent such a ratio? If it's just as bad, what is the point? Are you trying to say that after 200 the guy was on such a roll he didn't notice a few of them said "no?" Is that your point? You seem to view Dr. Wierwille as God's stud for our day and our time. Is that your point? The women of the kingdom belong to the king?
oldiesman, I remember a poster who was very defensive of Dr. Wierwille because he was himself accused of improper (or criminal) sexual activity, and while there was little dispute about the facts, only he felt he was justified by mitigating circumstances. In defending Dr. Wierwille, he was sort of defending his own choices and behavior. Are you that poster? Is that your point? Is this about you, and where you've put it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
firebee
Perhaps I should stay out of this thread, however there is something I want to say
1. Sorry to any and all that fell victim to Wierwille's wolf.............none of you deserved ANY of the teatment that an a-s-s like VPW heaped upon you.
2. A "pastor" tends to his flock, with tenderness................NOT p***k it to a "death" of a thousand memories
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
It is about an attitude.
The point I was trying to make is just this one .
Look at the roles people are playing.
I am to sleepy to go tit for tat or point for point yet understand this is what it is like when anyone accused anyone of any wrongdoing in the way.
his side, her side, I think ,I knew and I knew when people are not noble when it comes to kissing one another ***. or being honest or even remembering to keep the facts straight.
Our personal dealings and thoughts on matters will always have a different perspective and not everyone is right or good.
Some I dare say alot of people were so caught up in the cult, pain was not even an option any more personly or anyone eles.
Excuse and reproof took the place of reality or truth.
Lots of anger was involved .
Gee why didnt someone report it?
Why wasnt something done?
Well if you read this post and how serious people take their positions and then flip and change and then wonder what it is all about.
That is/was the way as well.
only people. people who had serious emotions and a clear agenda of what purpose was.
At the time I thought I had soemthing to lose like olds does now so how could I blame him for clinging to it?
I do understand oldesman.
I find it ironic it is the same attitude that allowed the abuse to run rapant.
not you .
I think we are all guitly of it to some degree honestly.
lets get well.
QC
ok you are asking oldesman if he abused woman in the way.
well he can answer you but if anyone did do ya think they would confess here?
really?
That is another trick from hell blame the one who question the status quo with some accusation and the crowd will flock you to hero status.
this is just ridiculas.
granted your trying to be a valiant man and come to a woman defense I am guessing ex, is strong enough to account for herself. or not, so this is how the game is played and after years of it
people truly hated one another in the way.
No one wanted to hear anyone eles crap.
it is easier to be silent.
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 02, 2003 at 20:28.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
mj---less rambling, more coherence. Try typing less and saying more, pretty please...
:)-->
oldiesman has been struggling with the SAME info for plus-or-minus 3 years...and it's all old info. One can check out other sources, add it up, do the math--it ain't rocket science, for cripes sake!!
I came to WayDale in the first year it was up; spring of 99, I think, after lurking at Trancechat first. It wasn't til a year after I came to WayDale that I finally faced up to it--Vic was a stinkin' pedophile pervert. C'mon, who on here in his 50s and 60s is gonna be lookin to 15, 16, 21, 22 year olds for sex outside of marriage??? get real--God nor the Bible condone or excuse it--that aint blowin it, that's rollin in it and lovin every minute of it!!!
Hey Bible fans--what's it say about CONTINUING willfully in sin once delivered??...GOD FORBID!!!! Now if God forbids, how happy is He with those that decide to stay in it, I ask you??? speak up, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
your a very critical man alffakat.
who the hell keeps track of anothers posts and why to such a degree?
short enough for ya?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
a hell of a lot more to the point than your previous one, that's for damn sure!!
keep it up, you'll get concise yet....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.