If my memory serves me correctly, the only biblical title Wierwille overtly claimed was "teacher", in fact "THE Teacher". However he implied that he was due some of the other titles. His definition of apostle was tailored to apply primarily to him, and even prophet, "one who speaks for God", could arguably be defined to apply to him as well.
Absence of his claim to prophethood does not invalidate calling him a false prophet, although false teacher may be closer to the mark for those of us who believe that he was indeed "false".
Scripturally we are warned quite clearly to stay away from people who demonstrate behaviors that identify them as *of the flesh*
Some how, wierwille and twi managed to convince us that it wasn`t applicable to them....somehow they managed to convince us that actions CLEARLY condemned and people we are repeatedly warned against in the scriptures were not applicable to them.
I suppose that is what makes a false prophet undetectable to the christians. They are able to turn people away from God and unto themselves...while sounding plausible.
TS I think you are correct about who really taught us(Stiles/Bullinger/Leonard/etc-ites)
I think what Oldies was saying is the wierwille taught it to him so that is who he credits. Believe it or not that I can understand if I read him correctly.
I'm not sure of the exact wording that he used, but in pfal, Wierwille states "You tell me who you think Jesus Christ was and I'll tell you how far you'll go with God"...
...I would add...You tell me who you think Victor Paul Wierwille was and I'll tell you how far you have come in your cult recovery.
Most of us here could probably put together a "biblical class" and pass it off as our own "research". In fact, many ex twi leaders have done that very thing. Personally, I would rather earn my money by doing honest work. If I were to teach people the bible (as I understand it), I certainly wouldn't be charging money and creating an image of myself as "some great one".
and yes, the claim that Veepee had all 5 gift ministries was proclaimed by numerous twi leaders on numerous occasions...Veepee was aware of this and never said "boo". He either allowed this to happen or instigated it himself. Twi was an extension of Veepee's enormous ego. After his own denomination fired him for sexual misconduct, he decided to start his own denomination with himself as the foundation (Christ was absent doncha know)...
For me, reading oldies post is like going back in a time machine 20 years...the only difference is that we didn't know any better...oldies...you are without excuse.
Since VPW never claimed he was a prophet he can't be labeled a false one--he is however guilty of false teaching and application
that said, it is not impossible for one to gain some good from a false teacher if one obtains the truth that is mixed with the fiction.
It can be argued, and correctly, that one who never knew the Bible at all, gained much good be being introduced to it by VPW. It can be further argues, that the Holy Ghost, can then influence the person, newly enlightened, so that they learn correctly from the Bible.
Case in point--I've always maintained that VPW's biggest error was telling us to Study and work the word for ourselves-- I and many others did just that and departed TWI as a result of what we learned
Since VPW never claimed he was a prophet he can't be labeled a false one--
I disagree with your conclusion here. He implied quite strongly that he was a prophet by defining a prophet as one who spoke for God, then making it clear that he was speaking for God.
I also disagree with you that his failure to overtly claim prophethood disqualifies him from being a false prophet. My logical powers are failing me just now, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
I think he was formulated to minimize the fading of colors and maintain color intensity of dark wash loads, while effectively cleaning clothes. Many of todays detergents contain harsh chemicals that can strip...........oh Geez - - I'm sorry - - that's Woolite [crap, there I go plagarizing from the wrong website again!].
Well done! You've absorbed the lesson of your teacher, vpw! "Always use the sentences and ideas of others to attempt to make yourself look clever, and NEVER give them the credit for it!"
1. Who said I was attempting to make myself look clever? I was engaging you in a discussion about F. Nietzchsce, specifically regarding a wrong assumption you made about him. I was not writing a literary novel. Even if I were, I believe one can quote up to 2000 words from another author/source and not need to cite the author or the source. (Any more than that, one DOES). I would question the critics if the so-called plagarized passages VPW cited in anything he ever wrote contained more than 2000 words? They made the accusation but never came up with any real proof - there's just a few nut pickers out there only out to pick up a few "nuts" with them along the way.
There are only 218 words from the source I cited (even the character count inlcuding the spaces doesn't come close to 2000) and even then, it was only done out of expediance to educate you regarding your ignorant viewpoint regarding F. Nietzchsce - it wasn't my attempt at writing a novel about him and declairing it to be mine! But If you are trying to prove how educated you are, you wouldn't have made the false assumption Nietzchsce was the one who declared "God is Dead" to begin with, but rather it was only an observation he had made. All you proved is you can do a Google search - and that fact proves you are clever and educated? Give me a freaking break!
2. My quoting of Nietzchsce accomplished the task. I constantly see my contemporaries making the same false "illusory" ethical statement over and over. The ethical statement they are making is based solely on esteeming the failures of VPW (and perhaps others) and nothing more. I just don't buy their "straw-man" argument. But that is so indicitive of the accusatory/victim menatlity mind-set so prevelant here.
1. Who said I was attempting to make myself look clever?
[standard WTH is not "discussion."
It is either a tossed insult, or a plagiarized article
that often has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Overt meaning when attributing the words of another
to yourself? To everyone else, it's obvious it's to make
yourself look clever. (Everyone not trying to make you
look good, anyway.)]
I was engaging you in a discussion about F. Nietzchsce, specifically regarding a wrong assumption you made about him.
[Or trying to claim that, at any rate.]
I was not writing a literary novel. Even if I were, I believe one can quote up to 2000 words from another author/source and not need to cite the author or the source. (Any more than that, one DOES).
[Please cite a source saying that's allowed.
Otherwise, this just looks like WTH's opinion.
Plagiarism is plagiarism even if it's only a single sentence.
And, additionally, if you were "quoting", you would have
placed your comments in QUOTATION MARKS.
Without them, you're saying "this is me talking."]
I would question the critics if the so-called plagarized passages VPW cited in anything he ever wrote contained more than 2000 words?
[so, you can't tell if it's plagiarized if 1000 words are lifted from a source?
Your ability to discern lacks resolution...]
They made the accusation but never came up with any real proof - there's just a few nut pickers out there only out to pick up a few "nuts" with them along the way.
[ignore the side-by-side comparisons, invent a new rule
that evidence must conform to,
and toss out insults to the dissenting side.
Well done again!
That was worthy of vpw, that was!]
There are only 218 words from the source I cited (even the character count inlcuding the spaces doesn't come close to 2000) and even then, it was only done out of expediance to educate you regarding your ignorant viewpoint regarding F. Nietzchsce - it wasn't my attempt at writing a novel about him and declairing it to be mine!
[More insults, and proclaiming your position was correct
by fiat! Also right from the vpw playbook!
And pretending your not ignorant concerning plagiarism
in the process, to round out the post.]
But If you are trying to prove how educated you are, you wouldn't have made the false assumption Nietzchsce was the one who declared "God is Dead" to begin with, but rather it was only an observation he had made.
[Nietzsche wrote "God is dead."
He penned it as coming from the mouth of one of his characters.
You can do that when you write fiction.
Saying "You claimed Nietzsche wrote it but he did not-
he only made an observation" is self-contradictory.
Nietzsche HIMSELF wasn't quoting anyone-he was writing
on his own.]
All you proved is you can do a Google search - and that fact proves you are clever and educated? Give me a freaking break!
[Actually, I prove that one all the time-and provide links.
(That I can do a Google search.)
I never claimed this made me clever OR educated.
I never claimed anything ELSE did, either.
Inventing these claims to draw attention off the fact
that you plagiarized in a post will not work.]
2. My quoting of Nietzchsce accomplished the task.
[it did-if the task was "demonstrating WTH is incapable
of understanding how plagiarism works,
and believes cut-and-paste of others is equal to writing
of your own".
Otherwise, I doubt it accomplished its "task".]
I constantly see my contemporaries making the same false "illusory" ethical statement over and over. The ethical statement they are making is based solely on esteeming the failures of VPW (and perhaps others) and nothing more. I just don't buy their "straw-man" argument. But that is so indicitive of the accusatory/victim menatlity mind-set so prevelant here.
[i constantly see a few posters making the same intentional errors about plagiarism
over and over. The ethical whitewash of a man who knew he was doing wrong
and nothing more. I no longer buy "innocent ignorance" after over a year of
"misunderstanding." BUT it is SO indicative of a consistent pattern of behaviour
i don't care what he thought about the catholic church. i have no respect for him. what i think of the catholic church is because of my own thoughts / experience.
his standard for anything falls short because of who he was. kind of like the catholic church i know
i don't care what he thought about the catholic church. i have no respect for him. what i think of the catholic church is because of my own thoughts / experience.
his standard for anything falls short because of who he was. kind of like the catholic church i know
Well Exie, I have heard about the Catholic church and what they have done. It AINT right. I know we have a couple of very level headed members here that practice the Catholic religion. If what I read from what they say through many postings of thiers. I would trust anyone with them. They seem very "Brotherly Love" as it should be.
Yes the Cathlolics have their problems and it has gone on and I do think they tried to hide it. I don't think (I could be wrong since I really do not know a whole lot about the Cathloic Religion) the Pope is out there raping our sisters in God and raping our brothers and sisters in God of their own individualism on how unique each one fits into Gods household. I do think it is and was for twi to do anything possible including THE VERY ELITE and mostly THE VERY ELITE to do anything for twi to survive.
That means owning up pulicly to what they have done wrong.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
7
8
9
Popular Days
Feb 28
24
Mar 2
20
Mar 1
15
Feb 27
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 6 posts
justloafing 7 posts
Oakspear 8 posts
WhiteDove 9 posts
Popular Days
Feb 28 2006
24 posts
Mar 2 2006
20 posts
Mar 1 2006
15 posts
Feb 27 2006
7 posts
Oakspear
If my memory serves me correctly, the only biblical title Wierwille overtly claimed was "teacher", in fact "THE Teacher". However he implied that he was due some of the other titles. His definition of apostle was tailored to apply primarily to him, and even prophet, "one who speaks for God", could arguably be defined to apply to him as well.
Absence of his claim to prophethood does not invalidate calling him a false prophet, although false teacher may be closer to the mark for those of us who believe that he was indeed "false".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Sadly,
the Bible warns against false prophets,
but does not include an explicit warning like
"And if a man cometh to you, claiming the writings of other are his own,
and that he brings teachings from Me greater than all those that come
before him, and he taketh the daughters of the people and practices
evil upon them, and teaches the men and women to sin in like manner
as he himself commits,
but nevertheless does NOT call himself a prophet,
I have not sent him to you, and he has spoken presumptuously.
Thou shalt stone him with stones, till he die, and then thou shalt
REALLY get rough with him."
It DOES warn against those that claim to speak for God, and those
who deal dishonestly, and those who seek to lead while sinning,
and the like.
Therefore, vpw would have avoided stoning on the basis of being
a "false prophet" or a plagiarist,
but STILL could have been stoned in Israel for some of the other stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Scripturally we are warned quite clearly to stay away from people who demonstrate behaviors that identify them as *of the flesh*
Some how, wierwille and twi managed to convince us that it wasn`t applicable to them....somehow they managed to convince us that actions CLEARLY condemned and people we are repeatedly warned against in the scriptures were not applicable to them.
I suppose that is what makes a false prophet undetectable to the christians. They are able to turn people away from God and unto themselves...while sounding plausible.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
One last note: White Dove, it's not that I didn't agree with that part of his conclusions. It's that I didn't comment about it one way or another.
Carry on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I was taught the accuracy of God's Word by Victor Paul Wierwille.
If that makes me a Wierwillite, so be it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
but OM... wouldn't it be more accurate to call you (and others) Stiles/Bullinger/Leonard/etc-ites?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
justloafing
TS I think you are correct about who really taught us(Stiles/Bullinger/Leonard/etc-ites)
I think what Oldies was saying is the wierwille taught it to him so that is who he credits. Believe it or not that I can understand if I read him correctly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I was taught error by Victor Paul Wierwille, too. So what does that make me?
Nothing! I do not define myself in terms of my thoughts, feelings or beliefs concerning Victor Paul Wierwille.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
That is correct.
I do not gloss over VP, despite his learning from other sources.
I also am very thankful for Stiles Bullinger Leonard Kenyon Luther, et al.
I wasn't taught by them, but am thankful they taught VP and others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
themex
I think that the term apply to the grads that made a cult of the personality and teachings of VPW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I'm not sure of the exact wording that he used, but in pfal, Wierwille states "You tell me who you think Jesus Christ was and I'll tell you how far you'll go with God"...
...I would add...You tell me who you think Victor Paul Wierwille was and I'll tell you how far you have come in your cult recovery.
Most of us here could probably put together a "biblical class" and pass it off as our own "research". In fact, many ex twi leaders have done that very thing. Personally, I would rather earn my money by doing honest work. If I were to teach people the bible (as I understand it), I certainly wouldn't be charging money and creating an image of myself as "some great one".
and yes, the claim that Veepee had all 5 gift ministries was proclaimed by numerous twi leaders on numerous occasions...Veepee was aware of this and never said "boo". He either allowed this to happen or instigated it himself. Twi was an extension of Veepee's enormous ego. After his own denomination fired him for sexual misconduct, he decided to start his own denomination with himself as the foundation (Christ was absent doncha know)...
For me, reading oldies post is like going back in a time machine 20 years...the only difference is that we didn't know any better...oldies...you are without excuse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Since VPW never claimed he was a prophet he can't be labeled a false one--he is however guilty of false teaching and application
that said, it is not impossible for one to gain some good from a false teacher if one obtains the truth that is mixed with the fiction.
It can be argued, and correctly, that one who never knew the Bible at all, gained much good be being introduced to it by VPW. It can be further argues, that the Holy Ghost, can then influence the person, newly enlightened, so that they learn correctly from the Bible.
Case in point--I've always maintained that VPW's biggest error was telling us to Study and work the word for ourselves-- I and many others did just that and departed TWI as a result of what we learned
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I also disagree with you that his failure to overtly claim prophethood disqualifies him from being a false prophet. My logical powers are failing me just now, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Oaks
At least we agree on the false part
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
...and I loved Donnie Osmond in Jeff Beck's Ambitious video. B) ^_^
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
1. Who said I was attempting to make myself look clever? I was engaging you in a discussion about F. Nietzchsce, specifically regarding a wrong assumption you made about him. I was not writing a literary novel. Even if I were, I believe one can quote up to 2000 words from another author/source and not need to cite the author or the source. (Any more than that, one DOES). I would question the critics if the so-called plagarized passages VPW cited in anything he ever wrote contained more than 2000 words? They made the accusation but never came up with any real proof - there's just a few nut pickers out there only out to pick up a few "nuts" with them along the way.
There are only 218 words from the source I cited (even the character count inlcuding the spaces doesn't come close to 2000) and even then, it was only done out of expediance to educate you regarding your ignorant viewpoint regarding F. Nietzchsce - it wasn't my attempt at writing a novel about him and declairing it to be mine! But If you are trying to prove how educated you are, you wouldn't have made the false assumption Nietzchsce was the one who declared "God is Dead" to begin with, but rather it was only an observation he had made. All you proved is you can do a Google search - and that fact proves you are clever and educated? Give me a freaking break!
2. My quoting of Nietzchsce accomplished the task. I constantly see my contemporaries making the same false "illusory" ethical statement over and over. The ethical statement they are making is based solely on esteeming the failures of VPW (and perhaps others) and nothing more. I just don't buy their "straw-man" argument. But that is so indicitive of the accusatory/victim menatlity mind-set so prevelant here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i don't care what he thought about the catholic church. i have no respect for him. what i think of the catholic church is because of my own thoughts / experience.
his standard for anything falls short because of who he was. kind of like the catholic church i know
Link to comment
Share on other sites
justloafing
Well Exie, I have heard about the Catholic church and what they have done. It AINT right. I know we have a couple of very level headed members here that practice the Catholic religion. If what I read from what they say through many postings of thiers. I would trust anyone with them. They seem very "Brotherly Love" as it should be.
Yes the Cathlolics have their problems and it has gone on and I do think they tried to hide it. I don't think (I could be wrong since I really do not know a whole lot about the Cathloic Religion) the Pope is out there raping our sisters in God and raping our brothers and sisters in God of their own individualism on how unique each one fits into Gods household. I do think it is and was for twi to do anything possible including THE VERY ELITE and mostly THE VERY ELITE to do anything for twi to survive.
That means owning up pulicly to what they have done wrong.
Edited by justloafingLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
everyone is entitled to their opinion dear JL (and happy birthday)
i'm still of the opinion that "church" stinks but there are a lot of good people in it, 99% of my family included
love,e
Link to comment
Share on other sites
justloafing
Thanks for the birthday greetings.
For the rest.................I agree
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MountainTopCO
A wierwillite is someone who has not looked behind the curtain. Even though the curtain has been openned.
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.