quote:Sure, you acknowledge that there was abuse going on.
You just refuse to acknowledge any actual incidents of abuse. Let someone talk about the abuse that was going on, on a personal level, and all you can do is remind that person what a sinner she is. Well done.
Raf, that wasn't ALL I said, but thanks to your nagging, I do admit it was condescending of me to say it, and / or say it the way I did. It didn't have to be said. Thanks for pointing that out. Iron sharpeneth iron.
quote:How many times do I have have to tell you that I think that good things came as a result of TWI? How many times do you have to hear that I think PFAL had some very good stuff in it? How hard is is to understand that I can acknowledge the good and yet still see the corruption. The fact that I saw corruption in TWI-1 from the get go, does not mean I find it "repugnant" that good resulted. God and his Word were bigger than the corruption. I give God the credit - not VPW or TWI. Do you have a problem with that? Why keep trying to paint the false picture? You are wearing it out.
Now, why didn't you address the other parts of my post? - Especially the paragraphs about consent and doing the MOG.
Goey, not this again. Every time I say I have you pegged a certain way, you come around and say I'm falsifying your position on TWI-1. I don't see you as thinking that it was from God. That's why you left, and that's why you have little nice things to say about it. At least I don't get it. Perhaps you can elaborate, for the record, the godly elements and fruit of Wierwille's stand and TWI-1. I'll jot them down, so I don't forget.
I didn't respond to the rest of your post because I'm still thinking all of it over in my head. In spite of what some folks might think, I do read and consider diverse opinions.
quote:Raf, that wasn't ALL I said, but thanks to your nagging, I do admit it was condescending of me to say it, and / or say it the way I did. It didn't have to be said. Thanks for pointing that out. Iron sharpeneth iron.
I'll take the "nagging" jab.
So, if your words were condescending and unnecessary, then do you see now why you might owe...
I got to thinking about this dialog on this thread. I must admit without OM and his oppossing opinion, the truth of the matter would stay in a one dimention. With this vollying of facts, perspectives and insights you come up with a well rounded understanding of the truth. Regardless of the topic it seems he adds a bit of cement to the mix of things. To make what ever he is oppossing very concret.
There has been many folks with sound logic and facts that have been embraced and validated because of his opposite views. So without his input the validation wouldnt be as sure and healing as complete. Thankfully I do not take him serious at all.
What I do however recognize is a meanspiritedness about him that is prevlent. OM needs the teaching of TWI to keep himself contained and I understand this. Whitout this theological system you mignt have someone out and about doing greater harm. I'd rather have him here on these threads then anywhere else where it would do irreversable damage.
There is no chapter and verse on "all the women in the kingdom belong to the king" because...well...um...it ain't in the bible!
No one is saying that there is anything in the bible to back it up. Those of us who believe that Wierwille inserted this perversion into his teachings to take advantage know it, and the Wierwille & PFAL apologists don't want to talk about it, although I daresay Mike would go with PFAL over the bible anyway. (It's not in the bible? Tattered remnants! See that proves it)
Wierwille was actually referring to a medievel practice called droit de seigneur (sp?). This was a theory that the lord had the power of life and death over all his subjects or vassals, and was sometimes manifested in the lord bedding a new bride on her wedding day.
There is an example of this in the movie The Postman where the warlord demands the services of a local woman, joking that he missed the wedding day and would make up for it then. He kills the husband who objects.
Oaks, I knew there was no verse like that. Don't know if you're a Gibson fan or not, but the Droit de Seignure (sp?) was practiced in Braveheart, too. It was what set him off. He and his girl secretly married so that the local lord, a sleezeball if there ever was one, could never get his hands on the new bride. When the lord found out, he slit her throat to get Wallis out of hiding. And got killed as a result hissownself.
A couple of pages ago, you depicted Oldiesman as having "some serious behavior issues before TWI and that TWI was a place to comfortably hide or act out on your stuff." OM's issues aside, I do think that there were people with personality problems that could indulge in them with impunity in TWI. The child abuser in Alaska, for example. The overbearing husbands who enjoyed the justification for lording it over their wives. The min-MOGs who (already having a tendancy to act out) modeled their temper tantrums after Wierwille and Martindale.
Perhaps we are expecting too much of a little Bible organization to root out evil in all of its forms throughout the organization, but I think it is certainly reasonable to expect the top leaders (BOT, Limb, department heads) to have upright characters -- i.e., exhibit moral behavior most of the time, and refrain from heinous activity, and for them to screen their immediate subordinates, who would in turn screen theirs.
Re:"George, if you're referring to PFAL '77, your analogy doesn't fly. If that was really true, that PFAL 77 was God Breathed and he portrayed it as such, don't you think he would have made it one of those mandatory classes everyone should take? After all, it replaces the old one? As it turned out, I don't think any of us saw the finished product on tape, I know I didn't."
You didn't follow what I was saying (what a surprise). Read it again. It was already made known that the PFAL '77 Class would NOT be replacing the '67 version as the required initiation into WayWorld (contrary to what the hype was prior to the class). Wierwille THEN made the announcement that "Paul never rewrote Ephesians" - the clear implication being that, like Ephesians, the first filmed PFAL class must have been received by revelation, and was a miracle or divine gift of some sort. Therefore, to redo "The Class" would be like Paul rewriting Ephesians (which he never did, right?).
Therefore, to redo "The Class" would be like Paul rewriting Ephesians (which he never did, right?).
It seems to me that Master Vic should have been familiar with the common scholarly opinion that "Ephesians" is indeed a "rewriting" of some kind, unless Pikes Peak University (PPU) didn't carry these sort of books.
Not a very perceptive example for him to use for making a case against "rewriting" or redoing anything.
I've seen the conclusions oft argued in many "NT introduction" volumes that Ephesians is a rewrite of Colossians, or vice-versa. It even had a different name attached to it in an earlier canon - "To the Laodiceans".
It is generally categorized as "Deutero-Pauline" on the basis of style, sentence structure,and content, and assumed to have been penned not by Paul, but by a zealous fan who sought to take Pauline ideas up a notch.
quote:Thankfully I do not take him serious at all.
Imbus, so then I assume you didn't take the apology seriously as well?
George:
quote:You didn't follow what I was saying (what a surprise). Read it again. It was already made known that the PFAL '77 Class would NOT be replacing the '67 version as the required initiation into WayWorld (contrary to what the hype was prior to the class). Wierwille THEN made the announcement that "Paul never rewrote Ephesians" - the clear implication being that, like Ephesians, the first filmed PFAL class must have been received by revelation, and was a miracle or divine gift of some sort. Therefore, to redo "The Class" would be like Paul rewriting Ephesians (which he never did, right?).
Ya get it now?
Sheesh, like teaching a pig to sing...
George, I see where you're coming from, but don't think VPW meant that we take that literally, and folks didn't. PFAL on par with Ephesians? I take that as a figure of speech, but you believe whatever you want. I'm sure Mike believes it wholeheartedly.
Your last line comment looks like namecalling, and again, I really wish folks would cut that out.
quote:Oldiesman
After reflection I realize that it was impolite of me to call you a pervert
it was impolite of me to call you slime
It was impolite of me to intimate that you mother was of non earthly origins ie. an Imp
And I do apologize
MO, I realize you were upset, thanks so much for the apology.
Yeah om, people did take it seriously...hook line and sinker...we thought we were the new book of Acts for crying out loud...you might not be so gullable --good for you....but understanding it happened doesnt mean you supported or participated.
I was there too, but didn't take it literally, obviously, cause I don't even remember the comment. I opine that if it was to be taken literally, really literally, that it probably would have been written down and documented in some way, for us to make no mistake about its meaning and importance.
quote:I do admit it was condescending of me to say it, and / or say it the way I did. It didn't have to be said.
quote:Imbus, I apologize for saying..you know...
quote:Imbus, so then I assume you didn't take the apology seriously as well?
I think tone is a hard thing to capture on a message board. I couldn't tell if your apology was "sincere" or not, if it was "heartfelt" or not. It's really not my call to make. I can tell you what it felt like as a reader: I think your earlier comment/admission was much easier to be entreated than the apology itself. Again, I'm not judging your heart; just the way words appear on a web page, which is a far more difficult thing to do. Words on a web page don't always convey the heart of the speaker. If you really are sorry you said what you did, then you've done your part, IMO. I don't know if Imbus will accept your apology or not. My guess is that before anyone will accept an apology, they want to know that it was sincere and heartfelt. And that's a real hard thing to convey.
"I opine that if it was to be taken literally, really literally, that it probably would have been written down and documented in some way, for us to make no mistake about its meaning and importance."
That's not how an accomplished conman works. He makes innuendos, inferences, or gives simple "connect-the-dots" analogies, but would take great care to leave himself an "out", a way to have "plausible deniability" should his critics close in.
To my knowledge Mr. Wierwille never said "My word is equivalent to the Bible", but he implied as much CONSTANTLY.
Oh, and re my "pig" comment, I was more trying to illustrate the futility of trying to reason with you, rather than disparaging your persona. Although I do have a difficult time maintaining much respect for anyone who - at this late date - still clings to the ridiculous notion that PFAL was anything but bait for a hook...
You mean that every word in THE WORD was not PERFECT? And that God didn't have a reason for everything in the Bible, where He says it, why He says it, how He says it, to whom He says it, when He says it?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
17
23
52
Popular Days
Apr 21
71
Apr 22
69
Apr 13
40
Apr 14
37
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 18 posts
Goey 17 posts
Raf 23 posts
oldiesman 52 posts
Popular Days
Apr 21 2004
71 posts
Apr 22 2004
69 posts
Apr 13 2004
40 posts
Apr 14 2004
37 posts
oldiesman
Raf, that wasn't ALL I said, but thanks to your nagging, I do admit it was condescending of me to say it, and / or say it the way I did. It didn't have to be said. Thanks for pointing that out. Iron sharpeneth iron.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
I find that OldiesMan employs a willful type
of ignorance which allows him to avoid having
to deal with the abuse issues in TWI. If he
can convince himself (and others) that what most
clearly recongize as abuse is in fact not or
is perhaps facbriacted and exagerrated information designed to besmsirch the name of
VPW, then he can continue to preserve his
notions that TWI wasn't "that bad" and that
VPW wasnt' "that bad" either.
Its apparent that those who still burn a candle
for the VPW legacy will always be serving that
memory at the expense of reality and logic which is ironic since VPW alleged to
be a champion of logic and independent thinking.
OM reminds me of an early Gspot poster known as "PeterLag" who would talk about how "unbelieving women" would "vex him" because
they would tempt him sexually and he would
at times give in to those temptations though
because they were unbelievers and he was a "son
of god" it was okay in the sight of God. And
then he would suggest that this is what happened
to VPW over time -that promiscuous women (unbeleiving as well as way followers)
would attempt to divert him from his appointed task though God would forgive him since his calling was so high and mighty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Goey, not this again. Every time I say I have you pegged a certain way, you come around and say I'm falsifying your position on TWI-1. I don't see you as thinking that it was from God. That's why you left, and that's why you have little nice things to say about it. At least I don't get it. Perhaps you can elaborate, for the record, the godly elements and fruit of Wierwille's stand and TWI-1. I'll jot them down, so I don't forget.
I didn't respond to the rest of your post because I'm still thinking all of it over in my head. In spite of what some folks might think, I do read and consider diverse opinions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'll take the "nagging" jab.
So, if your words were condescending and unnecessary, then do you see now why you might owe...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
no man anything, but love ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
...and in this specific instance, how might one appropriately express
or extend that love?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Imbus said:
Folks, thanks for feeding my secondary needs.
Imbus, I apologize for saying..you know...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Like pulling healthy teeth from an Osmond, with a pair of chopsticks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
See? You apologized! I bet it only hurt for a minute, and then it felt just great! (My apologies to The Gipper for that paraphrase)
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Yeah it feels great but it seems things are just so boring now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
Like pulling healthy teeth from an Osmond, with a pair of chopsticks.
============================================
Link to comment
Share on other sites
imbus
I got to thinking about this dialog on this thread. I must admit without OM and his oppossing opinion, the truth of the matter would stay in a one dimention. With this vollying of facts, perspectives and insights you come up with a well rounded understanding of the truth. Regardless of the topic it seems he adds a bit of cement to the mix of things. To make what ever he is oppossing very concret.
There has been many folks with sound logic and facts that have been embraced and validated because of his opposite views. So without his input the validation wouldnt be as sure and healing as complete. Thankfully I do not take him serious at all.
What I do however recognize is a meanspiritedness about him that is prevlent. OM needs the teaching of TWI to keep himself contained and I understand this. Whitout this theological system you mignt have someone out and about doing greater harm. I'd rather have him here on these threads then anywhere else where it would do irreversable damage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Watered Garden:
There is no chapter and verse on "all the women in the kingdom belong to the king" because...well...um...it ain't in the bible!
No one is saying that there is anything in the bible to back it up. Those of us who believe that Wierwille inserted this perversion into his teachings to take advantage know it, and the Wierwille & PFAL apologists don't want to talk about it, although I daresay Mike would go with PFAL over the bible anyway. (It's not in the bible? Tattered remnants! See that proves it)
Wierwille was actually referring to a medievel practice called droit de seigneur (sp?). This was a theory that the lord had the power of life and death over all his subjects or vassals, and was sometimes manifested in the lord bedding a new bride on her wedding day.
There is an example of this in the movie The Postman where the warlord demands the services of a local woman, joking that he missed the wedding day and would make up for it then. He kills the husband who objects.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
Oaks, I knew there was no verse like that. Don't know if you're a Gibson fan or not, but the Droit de Seignure (sp?) was practiced in Braveheart, too. It was what set him off. He and his girl secretly married so that the local lord, a sleezeball if there ever was one, could never get his hands on the new bride. When the lord found out, he slit her throat to get Wallis out of hiding. And got killed as a result hissownself.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Dear imbus,
A couple of pages ago, you depicted Oldiesman as having "some serious behavior issues before TWI and that TWI was a place to comfortably hide or act out on your stuff." OM's issues aside, I do think that there were people with personality problems that could indulge in them with impunity in TWI. The child abuser in Alaska, for example. The overbearing husbands who enjoyed the justification for lording it over their wives. The min-MOGs who (already having a tendancy to act out) modeled their temper tantrums after Wierwille and Martindale.
Perhaps we are expecting too much of a little Bible organization to root out evil in all of its forms throughout the organization, but I think it is certainly reasonable to expect the top leaders (BOT, Limb, department heads) to have upright characters -- i.e., exhibit moral behavior most of the time, and refrain from heinous activity, and for them to screen their immediate subordinates, who would in turn screen theirs.
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
OM,
Re:"George, if you're referring to PFAL '77, your analogy doesn't fly. If that was really true, that PFAL 77 was God Breathed and he portrayed it as such, don't you think he would have made it one of those mandatory classes everyone should take? After all, it replaces the old one? As it turned out, I don't think any of us saw the finished product on tape, I know I didn't."
You didn't follow what I was saying (what a surprise). Read it again. It was already made known that the PFAL '77 Class would NOT be replacing the '67 version as the required initiation into WayWorld (contrary to what the hype was prior to the class). Wierwille THEN made the announcement that "Paul never rewrote Ephesians" - the clear implication being that, like Ephesians, the first filmed PFAL class must have been received by revelation, and was a miracle or divine gift of some sort. Therefore, to redo "The Class" would be like Paul rewriting Ephesians (which he never did, right?).
Ya get it now?
Sheesh, like teaching a pig to sing...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Oldiesman
After reflection I realize that it was impolite of me to call you a pervert
it was impolite of me to call you slime
It was impolite of me to intimate that you mother was of non earthly origins ie. an Imp
And I do apologize
on the subject of calling you a minion of Lucifer---
If you act like his minion and do his dirty work, even unintentionaly, the shoe fits
on the flip side of the coin I also am guilty of being his minion on occassion, especially when my Irish/scots/welsh temper gets the best of me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
It seems to me that Master Vic should have been familiar with the common scholarly opinion that "Ephesians" is indeed a "rewriting" of some kind, unless Pikes Peak University (PPU) didn't carry these sort of books.
Not a very perceptive example for him to use for making a case against "rewriting" or redoing anything.
I've seen the conclusions oft argued in many "NT introduction" volumes that Ephesians is a rewrite of Colossians, or vice-versa. It even had a different name attached to it in an earlier canon - "To the Laodiceans".
It is generally categorized as "Deutero-Pauline" on the basis of style, sentence structure,and content, and assumed to have been penned not by Paul, but by a zealous fan who sought to take Pauline ideas up a notch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Imbus:
Imbus, so then I assume you didn't take the apology seriously as well?
George:
George, I see where you're coming from, but don't think VPW meant that we take that literally, and folks didn't. PFAL on par with Ephesians? I take that as a figure of speech, but you believe whatever you want. I'm sure Mike believes it wholeheartedly.
Your last line comment looks like namecalling, and again, I really wish folks would cut that out.
MO, I realize you were upset, thanks so much for the apology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washingtonweather
Yeah om, people did take it seriously...hook line and sinker...we thought we were the new book of Acts for crying out loud...you might not be so gullable --good for you....but understanding it happened doesnt mean you supported or participated.
I concurr with goerge, I too was there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I was there too, but didn't take it literally, obviously, cause I don't even remember the comment. I opine that if it was to be taken literally, really literally, that it probably would have been written down and documented in some way, for us to make no mistake about its meaning and importance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think tone is a hard thing to capture on a message board. I couldn't tell if your apology was "sincere" or not, if it was "heartfelt" or not. It's really not my call to make. I can tell you what it felt like as a reader: I think your earlier comment/admission was much easier to be entreated than the apology itself. Again, I'm not judging your heart; just the way words appear on a web page, which is a far more difficult thing to do. Words on a web page don't always convey the heart of the speaker. If you really are sorry you said what you did, then you've done your part, IMO. I don't know if Imbus will accept your apology or not. My guess is that before anyone will accept an apology, they want to know that it was sincere and heartfelt. And that's a real hard thing to convey.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
OM,
"I opine that if it was to be taken literally, really literally, that it probably would have been written down and documented in some way, for us to make no mistake about its meaning and importance."
That's not how an accomplished conman works. He makes innuendos, inferences, or gives simple "connect-the-dots" analogies, but would take great care to leave himself an "out", a way to have "plausible deniability" should his critics close in.
To my knowledge Mr. Wierwille never said "My word is equivalent to the Bible", but he implied as much CONSTANTLY.
Oh, and re my "pig" comment, I was more trying to illustrate the futility of trying to reason with you, rather than disparaging your persona. Although I do have a difficult time maintaining much respect for anyone who - at this late date - still clings to the ridiculous notion that PFAL was anything but bait for a hook...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Danny, what are you saying?(!)
You mean that every word in THE WORD was not PERFECT? And that God didn't have a reason for everything in the Bible, where He says it, why He says it, how He says it, to whom He says it, when He says it?
Heresy!
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.