All Activity

Is "extremely without joy" a figger of speech? Or is it a Lamsaism? Either one is without joy or one is not. What are these gradations of without?

Do you know enough atheists to come to a statistically valid conclusion that they are without joy? But extremely without joy...

It's been decades, and people defending vpw can still spring a few surprises. You're DECADES LATE to the discussion. The trial began. The prosecutors laid out the charges. The witnesses were called forth. The defense called the women liars and insinuated they were sluts and whores. All sorts of defenses were offered of him. By all BIBLICAL standards, and by enough to secure a conviction in a US court of law, vpw was found guilty of molestation, rape, and all sorts of things. We've slowly assembled his biography, piece by piece, from vpw himself, from twi sources, from eyewitnesses (interviewed by a man who idolized vpw). Court was adjourned, everyone went home. The seasons changed. Years passed. Then he arrives and announces that the trial hasn't even begun. No, you missed EVERYTHING.

I think he was letting me know with who/what I was trying to reason. Knowing that is important, and adds important context to the discussion.

You're entitled to have an opinion. That does NOT mean it's at all credible.

I think we're stumped and I haven't got any more clues. The Thin Red Line As I was watching it the other day I noted the cast. A lot of names but the movie was dirt, not enough plot for me. I can't even fathom what the line read line was. Good thing it didn't win any Academy Awards. FREE POST

Kodachrome (Not the first line) My grandfather and me Around Nassau town we did roam Drinkin' all night Got into a fight Well, I feel so broke up I wanna go home George

I think he was trying to say we can't prove Wierwille was an atheist. He's right. I clearly called it a suspicion and asked whether others think it fits the facts.

Does this post have any meaning at all?????

This may be a great post in a thread called "VPW was Elmer Gantry". (and I liked both men...VPW and Burt Lancaster.) LOL

I'm an atheist. I have lots of joy. I also exhibit the fruit of the spirit in much of my life and have been commended many times for doing "God's Work" (to which I respond: "I have to; He won't). "Atheists are extremely without joy" is a statement of staggering ignorance and bigotry. I trust that is outside your character. Might be best to stick with a subject about which you actually know something

That's really big brush you're painting with there.

A couple moments before work. When the prosecutor lays out the charges that's when the trial begins. Until then, all you've heard are charges. Sometimes atheists are like people describing a bong. Whose is it? Where'd you get it? What color is it? What's it made out of? Idk, idk, idk. I just love hitting the bong. I might like to learn some of that but the color of the bong doesn't change my experience if it. Atheists are extremely without joy, IMO. It's cool to talk about the extremities. Just, while you're doing that, would you pass me that bong?

And that applies to his henchmen and other enablers, too. Including LCM.

Well, remember he taught us to disregard the ten commandments, saying they were "the law" and the law didn't apply any more. The law? The ten commandments are rules for living together socially. Decent behaviour. Respect for God, and respect for fellow human beings. The Ten Commandments are a set of biblical principles that guide ethical behavior and worship. They are as follows: You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Honor your father and your mother. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. You shall not covet. These commandments were given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai and can be found in the Bible in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 You'll have to look hard before you find one that he didn't break. His God was money. His carved image was TWI. He mocked God. He respected no time of rest (quite the opposite, he pushed people to breaking point). He disregarded his parents. (Interestingly, this is "the first commandment of promise" - “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you." And we know he died earlier than might be expected for a man in his circumstances) He didn't physically kill anyone, but he killed their reputations, their confidence, their lives. He killed their genuine Godly ministries, too. Adultery - how many women did he rape and otherwise assault? (some have posted their stories here) Steal? He obtained money and other assets by fraud. He even stole his famous PFAL class and the follow-on classes! Bear false witness? The lies and slander he spread, about anyone he disliked and especially about departing Corps, are legendary. Covet? He sought the fame that genuine ministers had. As the Bible tells us: “Even a child is known by his deeds” (Proverbs 20:11) conveys the timeless lesson that a person’s actions-from childhood onward-reflect character. The verse serves as a reminder that moral responsibility begins early. Wordwolf has clearly set out the deeds of the child, teenager, young adult that was VPW. No surprise what the older adult VPW turned out to be.

I've been going over his entire life story, as much as we have. twi told quite a bit, and vpw LOVED to talk about himself. so there's little lack of some things, if only from his perspective. When looking at the whole picture, I realized, relatively recently, that it makes a consistent picture. His childhood was one of irreverence with a lack of piety or even dedication. His adolescence was even moreso. His neighbors considered him a bully, a showoff, and a braggart. A number of them remember him riding his motorcycle around, pulling stunts, trying to get notice and adulation. We know that much because a man who virtually worships vpw, a man who said he was "overgifted", and that "when he walked, the earth shook", and so on, that man went around and questioned the neighbors. The only thing he ever did that even suggested ministry was him making a comment to a traveling preacher, and vpw himself made it sound like he was just 'fibbing' when he said it. Before he made the decision to begin ministry study, he himself told the Corps, many times, that he had considered business, music, and ministry, but eventually decided on ministry. twi's own accounts, from vpw's mouth, mention that his decision was met with disbelief. His own father said that he hadn't even learned to work hard on the farm, and suggested ministry was harder. His neighbors were in disbelief as well. (Same source as before.) We know that his areas of study were the lightest he could find. No "history" or "languages". His academic focus was "homiletics", or "how to write and deliver a sermon." We also know that he cut corners, reusing his Master's Thesis for his Doctorate Thesis, a big no-no. We suspect he plagiarized a lot, but we can't prove much of that without his records or people who caught him doing it in school. we do know that he worked as an editor and proofreader for a magazine where preachers wrote articles. That provides the opportunity to plagiarize and not get caught- but isn't proof he did. We know his Doctorate was acquired at a degree mill, and the place was unaccredited. In the words of Al Franken, "They have as much authority to issue a Doctorate as Schlotski's Deli!" vpw himself spoke a lot about his first year or so of pastoring. He said he considered giving up twice early on, once per year, for the first two years. He also complained that giving weekly sermons at his first posting made him actually go to the Bible each week and write a sermon. Never a word about the lives of the people, never a word about the responsibility, just complaints he had to do the work. So far, I can't find any piety, any godly dedication. That's a man who's working for his paycheck, and trying to do the least amount of work for the most amount of paycheck. Then comes 1942. Much later, vpw spread a claim that we've referred to as "the 1942 Promise." Supposedly, God Almighty told vpw that He (God Almighty) would teach him (victor paul wierwille) God's Word like it hadn't been known since the 1st century, if he (vpw) would teach it to others. This was a lie, a fabrication, from when he first began to tell it (over a decade after it happened, he said nothing when it allegedly happened, not even to his own wife. We've discussed this alleged promise in detail, and it's beyond any REASONABLE doubt that this was a lie, and not a very convincing one. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24980-concerning-the-failure-of-the-1942-promise/ Still can't find the piety. A possible argument can be made after he spent time with Leonard and Stiles, in 1953. His brother claimed that he seemed more clean-cut after that, but from his birth through his education and his first DECADE as a minister, no evidence he had even an AVERAGE level of piety for a parishioner, let alone a minister. But how "godly" was he even in 1953? That was when he plagiarized Leonard's class and Stiles' book, and told everyone "I did this, this is my work." So, I don't think a strong argument can be made that he got right with God. That's decades in, and I still can't find godliness. In the 60s, he continued with incremental gains by hawking Leonard's class and Stiles' book, and modifying them by adding stuff from Bullinger. At the end of the 60s, vpw went to impress the hippies and recruit them. He seemed to appreciate the "free love" aspect of the hippies, and didn't like that the Christian ones weren't into that. He was unable to get anywhere with trying to suggest orgies were cool with God Almighty, and he seemed to drop the subject after it went over like a lead zeppelin. In the 70s, we have everything I mentioned in a previous post. It takes a lot of work to set up an excellent operation to molest people, and vpw set up a VERY successful one. We also have more direct eyewitness accounts more often, so at this point, we start to hear about his OTHER vices. vpw was a chain-smoker and an alcoholic. The man drank so much that when he visited a location for a weekend, a local was tasked with getting him bottleS (plural, for the weekend) of Drambuie. We know he drank Drambuie. How many of you know what your casual acquaintances drink? I've known one poster here face to face for years. I think we could probably say of each other. Of the rest of the board, no idea. (Oh, one ex-poster who made his own moonshine, I'm fairly confident he drank that, but that's a very special case.) He smoked cigars and Kool shorties. Again, we know what brand and type of cigarette he smoked. (IIRC, people were sent to get his smokes when he traveled, also, but I'm not 100% sure of that.) As for the 80s, that's when the man died of cancer. The man drank for decades, weakening his liver. The man smoked cigars and cigarettes for decades, exposing himself to carcinogens for decades. The man died of cancer. Allegedly, the reason he got the cancer was that he was exposed to bright studio lights for 2 weeks while filming pfal decades before. Some people still believe that. Studio lights do NOT cause cancer. On Broadway in NYC, on the West End in London, and so on, every night there are live shows with bright studio lights, not counting the matinee. Performers work looking into those lights for months or years at a time, some of them going directly to another show for months. So far, no outcry that they're dropping like flies because they're all getting cancer from bright studio lights. So, which is more consistent with the man, when we look at ALL the man, and not just the image he portrayed? Is it consistent that this man was indeed dedicated to God at some point, then gave up? we can't find any time of significant piety. Is it consistent that this man took ministry as a job, and worked as a performer, an actor, and faked it all, plagiarizing all the substance? The evidence matches. We can trace all of his successes to whom he plagiarized. The only thing left is the obvious objection "Well, if he was a fake all the time, what about when he manifested?" All of that could be faked, and it looks like it was faked. If you want to get into "Is it possible or impossible to fake the manifestations", then a new thread in Doctrinal would be where to have that discussion.

they give us those nice bright colours They give us the greens of summers Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah

"I don't believe that for a second." Not "you'll have to provide a lot more specific information if you'd expect me to agree," but you've already drawn a conclusion. "This is how I know you go beyond legitimate criticism to cynicism." So, "legitimate criticism" is when you believe it, and "cynicism" is when you don't? Either you didn't mean what you said, or you have a standard of distinguishing which is which that is subjective and unsound. " I'll listen to legitimate criticism, like saying he was a serial adulterer, but he was a mixed bag at a minimum." So, it's not the evidence, the eyewitness accounts, the direct quotes from him, or other things that determine where you draw the line, but rather what you believe? Well, that's honest to admit, I'll give you that. A lot of people COULD say the same, but wouldn't admit it. "I was a college atheist when I took PFAL. I believed the Bible and have been growing in it ever since. I've got VP Wierwille to thank for that." So, you know he was genuine because you benefited and got God in your life. That doesn't necessarily follow. Him being genuine or false and you getting God in your life are actually not automatically connected. That is, I'll stipulate to your benefit. I'll stipulate you got godly after being exposed to twi, pfal and so on. I would even go so far as to say I could say the same of myself. (How's that for cynicism?) That having been said, there's a lot more to the story than "He was godly, so I benefited." You heard some things that seemed godly. A fake could easily plagiarize the work of legit Christians. A fake could easily reproduce their work, their sermons, and so on. A fake could easily deliver a sermon. A good fake could produce a sermon with an impassioned plea that brings tears to his eyes- and might do so to you. So, a successful fake COULD do everything we saw vpw do. We also know that the House of Acts Christians, the hijacked hippies, those were legit Christians who were making a stir- which is why vpw heard of them from several states away. We know the people THEY taught, the people THEY prayed for, they got love and deliverance. And they taught some people, and so on. So, then, if a fake and a real preacher could both produce the same results as vpw- either through sincere work and dedication to God or through dedication to maintaining a cushy living and the means to keep it- how do we tell the difference? We look at the man himself. When we look at them when the cameras are on, we will probably see the same thing- a display of piety and sincerity. (A SUCCESSFUL fake won't be so easy to catch.) It's when the cameras are off that we will find out what the men are like. Let's say a man dedicates his life to God. Is he going to "walk the walk" as well as "talk the talk"? The answer should be obvious. But in twi, even what filters down to the local level is oddly permissive. No injunctions to moral living, EVER. We heard about God's PERMISSIVENESS, though. How far does this go? vpw had been at it for over a decade when he went to meet the hippies to recruit them. When he spoke privately to J1m D00p, he had a conversation that made no sense to J1m. vpw questioned him repeatedly about what it was like TO ATTEND AN ORGY. He told JD, speaking of ORGIES, that "THAT'S ALL AVAILABLE." His justification for that at the time was to tell him that I Corinthians 8:1 uses the word "GOOD" instead of "BEST" and so therefore, Christians could ATTEND ORGIES. JD was shocked, said he thanked God he was not in any of that, and changed the subject. Now, George Carlin once pointed out that a sin can have steps- that is, not be an impulse of an instant. "It was a sin for you to WANT to feel up Ellen, it was a sin to PLAN to feel up Ellen, it was a sin to FIGURE OUT A PLACE to feel up Ellen, it was a sin to TRY to feel her up, and it was a sin to feel her up! There were 6 sins in one feel, man!" All joking (and comedians) aside, he had a point. That sin involved PREMEDITATION AND PLANNING. He felt an impulse to sin. Rather than "flee fornication", he made occasion-and opportunity- for the sin. He worked out a location, made a plan, and put the plan into action. At this point, I'm pretty confident you'll just hand-wave it away, since it isn't what you think. However, when it came to the Way Corps, vpw had worked out a FEW places he could molest or rape women. GOING FROM THE REPORTS OF THE WOMEN WHO CAME FORWARD, I know of at least 2 that he used- his private bus, and his private office. He kept alcohol in both. OK, keeping alcohol in either is proof of nothing- although it suggests a possible drinking problem. But, by itself, proof of nothing. All Corps candidates were required to write an autobiography when applying, "From Birth to the Corps." In it, some of them mentioned they had a history where they survived sexual abuse. Now, survivors of sexual abuse are often easier to abuse later because of their previous conditioning and experiences. This, also, is proof of nothing when by itself. Now, consider the scenario. This was repeated in testimony after testimony of women who came forth, women who came here, and were called liars, were yelled at, were shouted down, were called whores by vpw fans, and who STILL came forward. The Corps was on the farm, in the middle of nowhere. The only people for miles were the people in the program and the staffers of twi. Women were there. Occasionally, a woman whose Corps paper said they'd survived rape was called privately to a private audience with vpw, either on the bus, or in the office. They attended. vpw greeted them- AND HAD THEIR AUTOBIOGRAPHY IN HIS HAND. He offered them a drink, and engaged in small talk for some time. Then his speech focused on their personal history. He offered to help heal them of their previous trauma. He was going to do that by showing them sexual contact with him, which was going to erase the trauma or overwrite it. "I'll show you what's good about being a woman." (And so on.) Some women were too shocked to react quickly, a few ran. A number mentioned falling unconscious. No, that's not a woman swooning, that's a woman who accepted a drink that turned out to be drugged, and passed out when the drug took affect. When they woke up, some woke up with vpw doing things to them. What happens next? Each woman leaves his presence. IMMEDIATELY, one of a handful of twi insiders appears and talks to them. The woman is subjected to an indoctrination about what a blessing that was, how they should feel good about it, and so on. The insider also observed their reactions. Women who looked like they might tell someone were rushed off of grounds before they could talk. A pretext for kicking them out of the Corps was constructed and presented. They were made to feel like trash, then put on a slow Greyhound bus home. As soon as they left but before they got home, the locals where they lived were phoned and given an earful about all the problems of this woman- most of them manufactured completely. If she told anyone when she got home, she was disbelieved- EVEN BY HER OWN FAMILY. LOTS of women came forth. According to the Bible, a multitude of witnesses whose accounts agree should be believed. I don't know what you're going to do. What it sounds like is that vpw made lengthy arrangements for the Corps where he was able to sort through the candidates and find women he was likely to be able to rape or molest successfully. Then he made lengthy arrangements for places where he was likely to be successful to rape or molest them- privacy, and so on. Then he made lengthy arrangements to have specific women isolated and brought to him- with no witnesses- and for one of a small handful of people to try to keep her from telling on him, and spying to make sure she wasn't going to talk. Then, those who looked likely to talk were kicked out, demeaned, and their reputations were savaged to keep anyone else from believing them. After all, vpw was The Man of God For Our Day and Time. Who would believe such things of him? That "one" woman must be lying for some reason.

I remember reading your remark about victor not being a true believer. At one time, I seriously considered it a possibility. But now I consider it a probability. It all makes sense with that in mind. His Corps letters, his rambling platitudes of so much nothing (Mmmph!), his overwhelming fear of having to answer questions... It just fits like a hand in a... Ehrman and McClellan took their academic pursuits much farther than victor was capable of, yet they did NOT lose their faith. (Ehrman has said repeatedly over the years that it was the problem of suffering, not training in textual criticism, that caused him to lose his faith.) ------ To the point about victor's laziness and appetite for big returns on small investments, look at his ThD. Theological and Biblical scholarship was on the rise mid-20th century. More ministers were being academically credentialed than ever before. With credentials comes marketability. The laity confers value and authority to preachers with letters behind their names. Congregations swell, books sell. To meet this new demand for competitive market-readiness, diploma mills started popping up everywhere. Enter Pikes Peak Bible Seminary. Victor's dumb luck was pure genius.

I don't believe that for a second. This is how I know you go beyond legitimate criticism to cynicism. I'll listen to legitimate criticism, like saying he was a serial adulterer, but he was a mixed bag at a minimum. I was a college atheist when I took PFAL. I believed the Bible and have been growing in it ever since. I've got VP Wierwille to thank for that. I wasn't a follower of Dr Weirwille. Ive studied the Bible myself and ran with a number of different churches through the years. When I was disappointed in or kicked out of them I took my Bible and Jesus and kept on going.

Love Wins All

This map will continually update. George

WW kind of sideswiped a theory I've been working under for the past few years. I've brought it up before but it bears repeating. I have a suspicion (not enough evidence to call it a theory) that VPW was an unbeliever at heart. In tribute to Mike's thesis about how Wierwille hid great truths in plain sight and we all missed it: He declared himself to be all but atheist after studying the Bible. He no longer believed the words Holy or Bible on the cover (which is grammatically and rhetorically stupid, but you get his point). Being educated about the Bible, its history and authorship caused him to all but lose his faith. He said so! What if he never regained it? Bear with me: what if, from that moment forward, it was never about getting God and His Word right, but getting while the getting was good? He got money. He got adoration, He got fame (relative to most of us). He got attention. He got sex. He got power. How much of what he did makes more sense if he didn't believe a word of it but knew how to manipulate people to get what he wanted from them? Every time he discovered a niche, he exploited it. "This book is not some kind of Johnny come lately idea just to be iconoclastic..." [if someone has the correct wording, please let me know. I'll be happy to fix]. Oh it WASN'T? Because it was so shoddy I would think that you were selling a title rather than a book. You have a doctorate. You know how to present and defend a thesis (stop laughing, you in the back row. @#$%ing Snowball Pete). But he was an unbeliever. He KNEW the scholarship about the Bible that people like Bart Ehrman and Dan McClellan are popularizing today. He knew and he stopped believing. And THAT is when the bulls hit started. The funny thing is, it doesn't negate anything he taught. Just his motives. If McClellan and Ehrman are right, the first Christians really weren't Trinitarians. They weren't what Wierwille espoused either, though some were. Jehovah's Witnesses actually got it right, if McClellan and Ehrman are correct. But even that conclusion presupposes a unified message from the New Testament writers. And they weren't unified. Here's the problem Wierwille exposed that a lot of Christianity still gets wrong. There WAS NO FIRST CENTURY CHURCH. There were first century churches. Tons of them. And they disagreed with each other about EVERYTHING. Another topic for another time. Bottom line, I'm increasingly coming to believe that Wierwille's rise and ministry can best be explained by the hypothesis that he was an unbeliever from the moment before he became relevant.