Leaderboard

Almost thou persuadest me to be an atheist

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.

You know, it is possible John might answer questions about his paper and what happened way back when if any of you ask him. Here's the website contact page to reach him and his organization: Connect With Us | Spirit & Truth

I was going out WOW and on our way to Amarillo I flipped into a manic psychotic episode and they put me on a bus. I got off the bus in Oklahoma City and was acting crazy and the police picked me up and put me in jail. A warden took it upon herself to look into my purse and fortunately my parents’ address and phone number were in it. (They had moved) and she contacted my dad who flew to OKC and took me home. Without these “fortunate” occurrences God only knows what would have become of me. It’s only because God took care of me not TWI. By the way, I didn’t really want to go WOW in the first place but was pressured into it by my twig leader. I’m bipolar but was undiagnosed at the time.

If anyone wants to read my first-hand account of being on staff at HQ and talking with John right after he was fired, it's in Undertow, Chapter 54: Clampdown. I got his permission to use his real name in my book.

I was born and raised as a Roman Catholic, and attended their schools. I bought into their belief’s and even thought of becoming a priest, in other words I was sold on their doctrine. UNTIL the Second Vatican Council in 1962. Prior to this no Catholic could eat meat on Friday, and if they did it was a mortal sin. A mortal sin would send you to hell if you did not confess the sin to a priest. So if a Catholic was to eat a bologna sandwich for lunch on any Friday, and on the way home they were killed in a motor vehicle accident, their soul would immediately be damned to hell for eternity. Pretty severe for sure and not very comforting for their surviving Catholic family. Then, the Second Vatican Council decreed that eating meat on Friday, except for Lent, was no longer a mortal sin. In other words, you can eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, a ham and cheese sandwich for lunch, and rib steak for dinner, and no longer commit a mortal sin. How in the name of fairness and common sense, could a loving God cast his children into everlasting hell for eating meat on Friday prior to the Second Vatican Council, and not post Second Vatican Council? That opened my eyes to the ridiculousness of this teaching and started me on a very long journey realizing that trying to explain a loving God was also ridiculous. There are several thousand Christian religions that all disagree on how to obtain eternal life. Plus all the other world religions all have their way of salvation. If you can’t prove one is tight then all must be wrong.

I have a first hand recollection of him teaching that masturbation was the original sin. That's not an event you casually forget.

This is getting obnoxious

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

Our Unwritten Seoul

Parables, from what I can see, are each meant to make a single, specific point, in a manner that almost anyone could understand it, and that's it. They are not meant to dissect in fine detail for doctrine- except possibly for the single, specific point. The parable in question is rather pointedly about forgiveness. So, in the parable, the framing story shows a person in prison until a debt is paid. As a basis for doctrine, that's missing the mark (to put it nicely.) Shame on JS if he couldn't just see that immediately, let alone catch it on a later read. As I see it, for him to miss something that obvious means he didn't WANT to see it, and was busy trying to justify something he wanted to see, even if he had to torture the verses to PRETEND that's what they said. Right now, it makes no sense to me for a punishment to be more suffering and THEN annihilation. I'll have to look over the 9 verses and see if, somehow, it makes sense to me afterwards.

Even VPW argued that the soul is simply your breath life.

Quantitative: countable. We have a soul. One. It's a thing. Not part of our imagination. Immeasurable: it doesn't have weight or mass. There's nothing about a soul that science can point to, independent of the body, in order to demonstrate its presence. It might be easier if I asked you what a soul is, independent of the body. I'm suggesting that St. Thomas Quinas' meditations on the soul carry no more weight in the real world than George Lucas' notes on how The Force works. (If you can think of a polite way for me to say that, I'm all ears)

If you wonder why and how I came to write my memoir, Undertow, this blog post I wrote some years ago answers that question: Dear Rachel: This is How | Charlene L. Edge

Three agents. Each following the god of Abraham. Each having their own scriptures upon which they justify violent suffering. Did I fix it?

https://web.archive.org/web/20030219041757/http://greasespotcafe.com/waydale/misc/adultery.htm Production of this document resulted in John being fired by T.W.I trustees in the late 1980's. Research Paper on Adultery by John Schoenheit (formerly TWI Research Dept.) (It is said that the circulation of this research paper led to John Schoenheit and several others who assisted him being fired from the staff of TWI in the late 80's. It is further said that anyone found reading this paper would never be allowed to rise in leadership in TWI beyond that of a "twig" fellowship coordinator.) Please make sure that you read the Question & Answer format Appendices at the end of this paper. Additional comments made by John Schoenheit on WayDale's Forums in May 2000. Forward: In 1982 or 1983 Rev. Ralph Dubofsky and Rev. Vince Finegan came to me. Dr. Wierwille had asked them to do some work on the subject of adultery. Ralph and Vince wanted to know what I knew and if it would help them. I was genuinely surprised at how little I knew about the subject from the Word of God. This paper is the result of those years of study. Actually, I had done a little study before Ralph and Vince came to me. During my last year in residence in the Way Corps, I was alone in my bedroom when a girl whom I had always thought was attractive came in looking for Diane. She thought that Diane was there and I was gone, and she came in wearing an "exciting" black nightie. I was surprised at how strong my desire was to make love to her. As I struggled to control my mind, I realized that I did not have a scripture to grab onto for support. I literally was not completely positive as to what the Word of God had to say on the subject. I began studying the the Word of God, and I got as far as the Mosaic Law which proscribes the death penalty for adultery. I believed that if God commanded the death penalty for adultery in the Old Testament, His will on the subject could not have changed with the change of administration. If anything, the marriage relationship is even more important now, during the age of Grace, because it portrays the Great Mystery. The reason for this paper is that I have discovered that not everybody believes that adultery is wrong. This paper is an attempt to clearly set forth the Biblical perspective of adultery and fornication so that every believer has a chance to see the will of God on the subject. This paper is not an attempt to "legislate morality" or to make rules and regulations that will improve the old man. It is an attempt to help every believer come to "an accurate knowledge of the Truth" (I Timothy 2:4). When a person knows where God stands on the subject, he can decide for himself where he wants to stand--on God's Word or off it. ==================================================================== Many Christians are confused about adultery and fornication. Some are not sure what the terms mean. Others think they know what the terms mean, but are not sure of God’s position on the subject. This paper is an attempt to clarify what the terms mean in modern English, what the terms meant as they were used in the Word of God, and God’s will concerning adultery and fornication. Adultery is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful husband or wife." Although that definition is not the biblical one, this paper will show that in the modern sense of the word, as well as the biblical sense, is a sin. The biblical definition of adultery is the breach of a marriage contract, and occurred when a man (married or unmarried) had sexual intercourse with a woman who was either betrothed or married. This definition will be developed from the scriptures in the course of this paper. The word "adultery" was also used by God to show Israel’s spiritual unfaithfulness to him. Thus there is both a physical side and a spiritual side to adultery. The thesis of this paper will basically deal with the physical side of adultery, i.e., actual sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. This paper will also deal with fornication. The definition of the word "fornication" as it is used in modern English has stayed very close to the biblical definition. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary gives the following definition for "fornication": "human sexual intercourse other than between a man and his wife: sexual intercourse between a spouse and an unmarried person: sexual intercourse between unmarried people." Thus the definitions of "fornication" and "adultery" do overlap to some extent. The definition of fornication will also be developed in this paper. This paper is in two parts with extensive appendixes. Part One deals with adultery and Part Two deals with fornication. In each part, the subject - adultery or fornication, has been developed in the order of biblical administrations. Thus adultery is considered first in the Patriarchal Administration, then in the Law Administration, followed by the Christ, Grace, and Appearing Administrations. Fornication is dealt with in the same manner. Adultery Every time the issue of adultery comes up in the Patriarchal Administration it is considered wrong and a sin. In Genesis 35:22, Reuben, Jacob’s oldest son, had intercourse with Jacob’s concubine. Genesis 35:22 And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine: and Israel heard it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve. There is nothing in the immediate context to indicate that Reuben was in any way punished for his adultery. But years later, on his deathbed, it was that event in Reuben’s life that Jacob remembered and spoke specifically about. Genesis 49:3-4 Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power: Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed; thou defiled thou it: he went up to my couch. Reuben’s adultery was wrong. Reuben’s action "defiled" his father’s bed. The word "because" in the phrase, "Thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed..." points to a cause and effect relationship. Reuben’s adultery somehow caused him not to excel. So Reuben defiled his father’s bed, and he would not excel because of his action. The incident of Reuben is thus similar to that of David. Nathan used the word "because" when he spoke to David: II Samuel 12:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and has taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. The "because" in this verse again points to a cause-and-effect relationship. David’s treating God with contempt and "taking the wife of Uriah to be thy wife" was a cause, and the effect was "the sword shall never depart from thine house." The book of Job, which is another record during the Patriarchal Administration, also mentions adultery: Job 24:15 The eyes also of the adulterer waiteth for the twilight, saying, No eye shall see me: and disguiseth his face. The context of this verse is people who do evil, and includes "those that rebel against the light" (verse 13), "the murderer" (verse 14), and burglars (verse 16). Adultery is placed in the same context with murderers and burglars. And the verse itself says that the adulterer tries to hide his action, clearly showing the evil nature of adultery. Job mentions more about adultery in chapter 31. Job 31:9-12 If mine heart have been deceived by a woman, or if I have laid wait at my neighbor’s door; Then let my wife grind unto another, and let others bow down upon her. For this is an heinous crime; yea, it is an iniquity to be punished by the judges. For it is a fire that consumeth to destruction, and would root out all mine increase. Job’s attitude toward adultery is clearly stated. It is a "heinous crime" and an "iniquity to be punished by the judges." There are three other incidents in the Patriarchal Administration from which to learn about adultery. Abraham and Isaac both tried to pass off their wives as their sisters. Abraham did it twice, and Isaac once. In all three cases, the pagan kings who took their wives knew that adultery was wrong, and returned the wives untouched when they found out that the women were already married. These three accounts are covered in detail in Appendix B. There is one other record of adultery, actually an attempt at adultery, that must be considered. Joseph was one of the twelve sons of Jacob, and he was sold into slavery and taken to Egypt when he was still a teenager. Joseph was purchased by Potiphar, an "officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard" (Genesis 39:1). After a time Joseph had risen in position until he was the overseer of Potiphar’s house. At that time, Potiphar’s wife desired Joseph and wanted to have sexual intercourse with him. She was bold and up front with her desire, and said to Joseph, "Lie with me" (Genesis 39:7). Joseph refused. He called the intended adultery "great wickedness" and a "sin against God." Joseph, like Job, understood the nature of adultery. It is a great wickedness and a sin against God. The information on adultery that can be gleaned from the Patriarchal Administration is clear. Adultery was wrong. It defiled, it made one guilty (Appendix B), it was great wickedness, a heinous crime, an iniquity to be punished by the judges, and a sin against God. There is nothing in the Word of God to indicate that adultery was in any way acceptable before God in the Patriarchal Administration. After the Patriarchal Administration came the Law Administration. As in the Patriarchal Administration, there is nothing in the Law Administration to indicate that adultery was in any way acceptable behavior. The Mosaic Law forbids adultery. The seventh commandment is: "Thou shalt not commit adultery". That the usage of "adultery" in the seventh commandment is physical, i.e., a man with a woman, was made clear by Jesus Christ when he quoted the seventh commandment as is recorded in Matthew: Matthew 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. It is obvious from Jesus Christ’s usage of the seventh commandment that he knew it referred to illicit sexual relations between men and women. A study of Old Testament scriptures shows that for a man, married or unmarried, to have sexual intercourse with a woman who was either betrothed or married was a capital crime, carrying the death penalty. Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Deuteronomy 22:22-27 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. There was one exception to the law as recorded above, and that was when a man had intercourse with a betrothed woman who was also a slave. However, even then, there were consequences for their having had intercourse, and the act is called a "sin." Leviticus 19:20-22 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondsmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him. In contrast to these clear verses, there is not one verse or record showing that adultery was acceptable to God in the Law Administration. A number of clear verses during the Christ Administration, which followed the Law Administration, show beyond a shadow of a doubt that adultery was a sin. Jesus Christ clearly addressed the issue on several occasions. He quoted the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," on two different occasions. One was during his teaching from a mountain in Galilee during the summer of 27 A.D. (which has been quoted earlier). Matthew 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Jesus quoted the seventh commandment a second time while he was in Perea, just prior to his trip to Jerusalem when he was crucified and slain. At that time, a rich young ruler came to Jesus and asked him what he should do to have eternal life. Matthew 19:16-18 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. It is clear from these two separate records in Matthew that Jesus Christ knew and taught that adultery was wrong. John, chapter 8 is the record of the scribes and Pharisees who brought a woman to Christ "taken in adultery, in the very act." John 8:4-6 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. The scribes and Pharisees said to Jesus, "Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" (verse 5). They said this to Jesus so they would have something to use as an accusation against him (verse 6). Moses did say that a woman caught in adultery should be killed. Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. Nevertheless, at that time, the Romans had made it illegal for the Judeans to put any person to death. This is why the Pharisees had to take Jesus Christ to the Roman authorities when they wanted him killed. John 18:31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. The trap of the Pharisees who brought the adulterous woman to Jesus Christ was very clever. If Jesus had said to stone the woman, the Pharisees would have seen to it that he was arrested for breaking Roman law. If, on the other hand, Jesus had said, "Well, Moses said to stone her but we have to obey Roman law," the Pharisees would have accused him of placing Roman law above God’s justice and discredited him (Remember, they brought the woman to Jesus, not for justice but so they could find something of which to accuse Jesus.) When Jesus gave his answer about casting the first stone, all the accusers left the scene. Jesus then asked the woman, "Where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?" According to Mosaic law, there was to be a trial and witnesses who would testify to a person’s guilt. If the person were found guilty, the witnesses were to cast the first stones at the guilty party (Deuteronomy 17:4-7). When Jesus stood up, there was no one there to be a witness and no one to fulfill the Mosaic law by casting the first stone. So Jesus said to the woman, "Go, and sin no more." By calling the woman’s adultery "sin", Jesus clearly stated what adultery is - a sin. Furthermore, Jesus told the woman not to commit adultery again. It is thus clear that adultery was a sin in the Christ Administration. Christ quoted the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" in his teaching from a mountain in Galilee. He quoted it again to the rich young ruler who asked him what to do to receive eternal life. He called the adultery of the woman mentioned in John, chapter 8 a "sin" and he gave illicit sexual relations as the only valid reason for divorce. In contrast to these records, there is not a scripture in the gospels that indicates that adultery was not a sin or that it was to be taken lightly. This paper has dealt with adultery in the Patriarchal, Law and Christ Administrations, and it has shown that adultery was considered wrong and a sin in all of them. For adultery to be acceptable to God in the Grace Administration would be a change, and God would have to say it is acceptable. In fact, the opposite is the case. In the Grace Administration, God continues to call adultery a sin. From Acts to Revelation, the words "adultery," "adulterer," and "adulteress" are only used fourteen times in the King James Version: Romans 2:22 (twice); Romans 7:3 (twice); Romans 13:9; I Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19; Hebrews 13:4; James 2:11 (twice); James 4:4 (twice); II Peter 2:14; and Revelation 2:22. Only the first seven of these uses are in the church epistles. Each of the fourteen occurrences will be examined. 1 and 2 Romans 2:22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? The context of Romans 2:22 is Judeans who are "instructed out of the law" (verse 18). Thus the reference to them, saying, "A man should not commit adultery" comes right out of the ten commandments, i.e., "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The reference is simple and straightforward, and refers to the physical act of adultery. There is no reason to read spiritual adultery into this verse since the reference is obviously to the law and since idolatry (which would be spiritual adultery) is mentioned in the same verse. 3 and 4 Romans 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. The context of Romans 7:3 is Judean law. This is clear from verse 1 "(for I speak to them that know the law)." Romans 7:3 is speaking about laws regarding divorce and remarriage and closely parallels what Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; and Luke 16:18, giving fornication as grounds for divorce. 5 Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Romans 13:9 is a very clear verse of scripture, especially in light of immediate context. The quotation, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is from the ten commandments. It is noteworthy that the specific commandment was given in the ten commandments in the Law Administration, then quoted in the Christ Administration, and is now being quoted in the Grace Administration. The context of Romans 13:9 is easy to understand. God’s will for the believer is made clear in verse 8, i.e., "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another." All the believer needs to do then is to find out from the scriptures how to love his neighbor as himself. The answer, at least in part, is in verses 9 and 10. And verse 9 makes it clear that "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" includes not committing adultery, not killing, not stealing, not bearing false witness, and not coveting. All those "Thou shalt not’s" are "briefly comprehended," i.e., "summed up," in the saying, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." It is clear from verses 8 and 9 that a person who loves someone will not steal from them, kill them, bear false witness about them, covet their belongings, or commit adultery with them. Furthermore verse 10 points out that "love is the fulfilling of the law" because it works no ill to his neighbor. The word "ill" is kakos in the Greek and is usually translated "evil." Love is the fulfilling of the law because the person who walks in the love of God will do what the Old Testament Law tried to do, i.e., get people to work no evil to their neighbors. Thus the person who walks in love will not steal, which is something the law tried to get people not to do. The person who walks in love will not commit adultery, which is something the law tried to get people not to do. Since the Old Testament law forbade adultery, in fact made it a capital crime, it cannot be "fulfilling the law" to commit adultery. So the person who walks in love, and thus fulfills the Old Testament law, must be a person who does not commit adultery. 6) I Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrightous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. The question that needs to be answered in this verse is whether or not the adultery is physical or spiritual. The context of the verse is both spiritual and physical sins. "Fornicators" will come up later in the paper. "Idolaters," of course, is definitely in the spiritual category. "Effeminate" is the word used for the man who plays the female part in a homosexual relationship. "Abusers of themselves with mankind" refers to homosexuals and pederasts. Since many of the other terms refer to physical, sexual acts, and since idolatry is plainly listed, the weight of evidence is that "adultery" in I Corinthians 6:9 refers to the physical act. 7) Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness. The word "adultery" has been erroneously inserted here. It is not in the majority of the Greek texts, nor in the Syriac Pedangta text. This ends the usages of "adultery" in the seven church epistles. The clear scripture is Romans 13:9 which leaves no doubt about God’s position on adultery - that it is not a loving thing to do, but is doing "evil" to ones neighbor. 8) Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. This verse is clear. Although marriage is honorable and the marriage bed "undefiled," i.e., unsoiled, unstained. Adulterers, who are breaking the marriage covenant, God will judge. Whoremongers, or fornicators, are covered in Part Two. 9 and 10) James 2:11 For he that said, "Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. This is another time the seventh commandment is quoted in the scriptures. The context clarifies this verse. James 2:10-12 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, "Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. The overall point that is being made in this section of James is that it is not good enough to keep most of the law. Sin in even one area of a person’s life is still sin and makes him guilty under the Law. James 2:12 says, "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." The believer is to walk for God and not ignore sin in his life, thinking, "Well, after all, most of my walk is okay, so a couple sins won’t hurt." The reason adultery is even mentioned in James 2:11 is that it was an acknowledged example of sinful behavior, just as killing was. Adultery would not have been used in the verse if it was not a sin. 11 and 12) James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. The words "adulterers and" should be omitted from this verse. They are not in the majority of the Greek texts or the Syriac Pedangta text. The word "adulteresses" has the spiritual meaning here, i.e., those who turn from God to serve worldly things. The context of this verse is those who serve worldly things rather than worshipping God. This is the first time that the word "adultery" has referred to idolatry or spiritual adultery. 13) II Peter 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children The use of "adultery" in this verse is a good example of how closely tied physical adultery and spiritual adultery can be. The phrase "eyes full of adultery" forcefully reminds one of Christ’s words, "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already..." Thus the phrase carries the imagery of literal physical adultery. While the context of the verse will allow that, the context also demands that the ones involved are spiritual adulterers, i.e., idolaters. They have "forsaken the right way" and have "gone astray" and are "following the way of Balaam" (verse 15). Thus, in this verse, there is no need to separate the spiritual sine from the physical sin. The men involved are guilty of both. 14) Revelation 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. This verse illustrates the use of the physical sin to communicate a spiritual truth. "Adultery" carries the image of the physical act: "cast her into a bed" and "those that commit adultery with her." Nevertheless, in the context, the verse seems to be speaking of judgment for sin, not saying that there actually was a woman whom God would cast into bed. God uses one sin, adultery, to communicate truths about another sin, idolatry. All fourteen uses of "adultery" in the New Testament have now been covered. Not one of them indicates, in any way, that adultery is acceptable to God. Quite the opposite is the case. Adultery is a sin. Furthermore, the sin of adultery is used to graphically portray the sin of idolatry. Adultery has now been studied in the Patriarchal, Law, Christ, Grace, and Appearing Administrations. In not one single instance has it been shown not to be a sin. In stark contrast, there were many verses showing that adultery was a grave sin. Adultery, in the Old Testament, involved a man, either married or unmarried and a woman who was either betrothed or married. The evidence from the Gospels (Cp. Matthew 5:32) and from the epistles (Cp. Romans 7:3) indicates that that definition holds true all the way through the Word of God. There are no examples of the term "adultery" that involve a man, married or unmarried, with a single woman. That means that, up to this point, all this paper has shown is that for a man to have sexual intercourse with another man’s wife is a sin. This next phase of the paper will deal with fornication and will show that in the Grace Administration it is a sin for a man to have sexual intercourse with any woman unless he is married to her.

Definitely a dog person…my pooch has never let me down and can always be counted on for her loyalty.

Maybe I should not have split the threads. But I honestly thought "what happens after we die" was a different enough question that it deserved its own thread. So, we clearly agree that there is no post-life punishment for euthanasia (nor is there a post-life reward for sticking out the suffering). Not long ago I learned an actor friend of mine took his life in a "no way am I going to suffer the way my disease prescribes" manner. The thought is terrifying to me, precisely because I don't believe ending this life ushers us into the next. I think it was Ricky Gervais who said "People think atheists have nothing to live for. They have it backwards. Atheists have nothing to DIE for. We have everything to live for." Because this is our one shot at life, so make it flipping count! If you're looking at those issues from THIS side of the final curtain, the question of whether these acts are moral becomes a little murkier. But as far as post-death accounting: there is none. We agree on that.

Objective

This is how I look at nothingness. Prior to being born I was absolutely nothing. And after I die I go back to that state of nothingness. I didn’t suffer prior to being born and will not suffer after my last breath. There is nothing brave about accepting reality. If I truly believed in an after life you can bet I would being doing all the arrive there. Actually I did chase that belief for most of my life. I went down so many rabbit holes trying to be godly it wore me out. Please answer me this. How do you know for a certainty your biblical belief is the correct one getting you into heaven? If your are a RC you get to heaven by being water baptized, attending mass on Sunday and holy days of obligation, confessing your sins to a priest, doing good works, and make certain you do not die with a mortal sin on your soul, because if you do you are assured of going to hell. A Baptist believes you are not saved by works, but by the grace of god. How do you reconcile these contradictory beliefs? Let’s assume you are a RC and die with no mortal sin on your soul. And when you stand before the judgement seat of god he says, “why haven’t you realized works will not get you into heaven?” Or what happens if god actually believes being a Muslim is the only way to heaven. Or what if god believes you must be a Buddhist to enter the pearly gates? How about you must be a Hutterite or Menonite? It defies logic that of the thousand of religions in the world, you somehow, have come upon the correct one! Let’s say one representative of each of the religions of the world stood side by side and formed a line for miles. And when god appears, he would tap you on the shoulder and say “you have got it right. Welcome to your group. All the rest have got it wrong.” Pretty crazy odds, no?

Thank you. If I am less than respectful in responding to your questions, please call me out on it.

And for the non-believer, it's difficult to believe there is no karma. But here's the thing. If you make a habit out of blowing through red lights on a regular basis, there's a pretty good chance you're going to get T-boned someday. It's not karma, it's just the laws of statistics catching up with you. It's not a punishment from God. It's not a tit for a tat or an eye for an elbow. It's just a way to cope with the sometimes harsh realities of this world.

It seems very unlikely that Mrs. Wierwille was present at that pj party. "He played a porn video followed by a talk on how a Christian can so renew their mind that this stuff wouldn't bother them, the spiritually mature can handle anything and that anything done in the love of God is okay." I've heard that he would tell a victim that she was chosen because she was spiritually mature enough to be with him. And then, in order to keep his abuse secret, he would also say to keep what happened between them in a lock box because there were others who were not spiritually mature enough to handle knowing about it. OMG, Holy ...., and twi today still honors this evil man as the founder of their ministry.

Space Oddity "Four, three, two, one, earth below us"

How we communicate is a personal decision. I choose to (at least attempt to) communicate in a way that doesn't assume that the other person is a complete idiot. I'm also influenced by the way I communicated my faith while in TWI, and how I see many evangelicals/fundamentalists speak now -- it can be arrogant and condescending. I also figure that I'm not responsible for what other people believe as long as they're not trying to enshrine it in law, or are assuming that I'm an idiot for not believing what they believe. I think that Gervais, at least in that interview is pretty low-key about it. He presents why he thinks the way he does, but doesn't attack Colbert or imply that he is stupid. Regarding the second phrase you highlighted. My family members have built up an immunity to my opinions on religion stemming from my obnoxious "witnessing" during my TWI days and get very defensive when I express an opinion about religion. My point was not I wasn't trying to convince her that her god didn't exist, but that maybe her understanding about said god wasn't in line with reality...within the context of stipulating that God exists. By the way, I'm not an atheist, although I may sound like one sometimes. I allow for the existence of spiritual entities in a kind of agnostic way, but don't base any life decisions on their existence. If there is a God, then there are gods also, with their existence all being of similar probability. I recall a quote that was attributed to The Buddha (probably apocryphal) where he acknowledged that gods existed, but that they were rather silly! I have moved away from religion in multiple steps, starting with my rejection of TWO dogma, moving through skepticism about the Bible all the way to where I am now.

I lived for years with the pain and fear than my unbelieving adult children and grandchildren, who being ineligible for a ticket for the rapture trip, would have to resist the mark of some dreaded beast all the while they were experiencing the great tribulation when God's wrath is poured out and life becomes worse than anything in the history of mankind. And if they were lucky able to survive all that, they would then have to face annihilation or the lake of fire or an eternity in hell or whatever God's judgment had planned for them. But, when I realized that there was no evidence that this bogeyman of a god even existed, that fear vanished.

Probably it would be freeing. By the time I started raising children I was already involved with TWI, so all my adopted and biological children grew up with TWI doctrine. However, despite being mostly Waybrained, I tried to encourage my children to think and come to logical conclusions. It took with some of them, but not with others! By the time I remarried and was raising a stepdaughter, my wife and I didn't attempt to indoctrinate her in anything. She still managed to catch the Christianity bug through friends, got baptized while she was in Air Force basic training, and still considers herself a nondenominational, generic Christian, although I doubt she cares about doctrinal specifics. Of my children with my first wife, none have stayed with TWI. One son is an atheist, another might be, but doesn't claim the label. My daughter considers herself Catholic, but doesn't really participate. The others never talk about it. My granddaughters are raised by parents who would probably not identify as atheists, but are not involved in any church and to my knowledge never talk about religion. One of the girls told my wife that she doesn't believe in any gods. They're probably the closest in my extended family who I would consider having been raised atheist -- more like raised doctrinally neutral

I like Gervais' approach. He doesn't try to beat people over the head with atheism, or even try to convince anyone, he just states that it's the conclusion that he came to.

Thanks Oakspear! I spent the whole day online yesterday only to come up with what you so efficiently shared in three points. I'll still share my longer version with its links so I'll have something to show for my time . 1. “What agape means in ancient Greek writing somewhat differs from the word's contemporary use. The earliest references to agape in Greek writing use the term to refer to a deep love for a spouse or a close family member. Agape's Greek origin is the verb agapao ” Agape Love Meaning, Uses & Examples 2. "Agapē (αγάπη in Greek) is one of several Greek words translated into English as love. Greek writers at the time of Plato and other ancient authors used forms of the word to denote love of a spouse or family, or affection for a particular activity, in contrast to, if not with a totally separate meaning from, philia (an affection that could denote either brotherhood or generally non-sexual affection) and eros (an affection of a sexual nature, usually between two unequal partners, although Plato's notion of eros as love for beauty is not necessarily sexual). The term agape with that meaning was rarely used in ancient manuscripts, but quite extensively used in the Septuagint, the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible." New World Encyclopedia 3. "The verb agapao is used extensively in the Septuagint as the translation of the common Hebrew term for love which is used to show affection for husband/wife and children, brotherly love, and God's love for humanity. It is uncertain why agapao was chosen, but similarity of consonant sounds (aḥava) may have played a part. It is not impossible that the Greek concept even originated as a transliteration from some Semitic tongue. This usage provides the context for the choice of this otherwise obscure word, in preference to other more common Greek words, as the most frequently used word for love in Christian writings. The use of the noun agape in this way appears to be an innovation of the New Testament writers, but is clearly derived from the use of the verb agapao in the Septuagint<ref>Agape as a term for love or affection is rarely used in ancient manuscripts." Art and Popular Culture 4. "The verb form goes as far back as Homer, translated literally as affection, as in "greet with affection" and "show affection for the dead".[2] Wikipedia I enjoyed reading The Odyssey, so I'll share this as well. Art and Popular Culture above also mentions Homer. It reads, "Although some sources claim Agape appears in the Odyssey twice, the word is in fact not used. Instead, two forms of the word agape may be found: agapêton and agapazomenoi. Agapêton is found in Book 5 of the Odyssey and means 'beloved' or 'well-loved' (referring to Odysseus and Penelope feelings for their son Telemachus). Agapazomenoi is found in books 7 (Nausicaa saves Odysseus when he is starving, battered and naked after washing ashore on her island) and 17 (lines 30-45 when Odysseus' nurse Eurycleia saw him at first upon his return and 'with a burst of tears she came straight toward him' and the other maids gathered 'and they kissed his head and shoulders in loving welcome') of the Odyssey and means 'to treat with affection." (Words in Italics are added to the quote) Pretty cool methinks .

According to Wikipedia, the word was used rarest in classical Greek, but was used in various ways: (as a verb) -- to greet with affection to show affection for the dead love for spouse or family I'm not sure the writers of the New Testament meant it in any way other than just "love". If I remember correctly, virtually every use of the word "love" in English is translated from "agape". (In TWI some "teacher" would breathlessly reveal that some instance of love was ...the word agape...as if it was some cosmic truth). I believe that it was retroactively assigned the meaning or interpretation of love from or for God. Biblical writers and theologians needed to present love that proceeded from God, or manifested by Christians, was somehow different than love manifested by disbelievers. I doubt you could subjectively see any difference between Christians and non-Christians in how they love. Of course any attempt to meaningfully define what God's love entails runs into the problem of any possible unloving action by God spurring a redefinition of love that includes that action.

Galatians 5 (KJV) 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. Galatians 5 (NASB) 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, 20 idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Let's see. The works of the flesh are compared and contrasted with the fruit of the Spirit. Sexual immorality, indecent behavior, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, envy, drunkenness... hey sounds like vpw's "To Do" list. He covered these pretty thoroughly. As for the fruit of the Spirit, he evidenced NONE of these. Someone with a tortured enough definition could shoehorn "faith" in, but not the others. When the cameras were off, "joy" was far away, as was "agape." The rest really sound like he was aiming for their opposites.

I can understand where you are coming from making such a statement, since believer’s think one can only experience joy by what is written in a book written thousands of years ago. They rationalize the only way of knowing if something is right or wrong is by reading it chapter and verse from this book. They also must read, apparently, what joy is to bevable to experience it. As an atheist I can tell you i have not experienced so much joy since no longer relying on god. I find joy in everyday living doing the things necessary to live. Family and friends play a significant role in my happiness and it doesn’t matter what their religious beliefs might be. Plus I no longer have to be concerned if I am pleasing god or not.

Just be glad you didn't see it in the original.

This opens up a whole lot of other questions for me like, does God work with unbelievers as well. Maybe the whole rap of "the fruit of the spirit comes from the manifestations" is bogus. QUESTION for the group: did VPW make that up or did he copy it from elsewhere... Stiles, Leonard, or somebody else?

After watching many episodes of "The Practice" and enjoying it immensely, I have to admit, "It's Possible".

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

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

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 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.

Love Wins All

Yes, Way Corps is still run out of Camp Gunnison and HQ. (WC 55 as far as I know). They do not mention Stiles, Bullinger or Leonard cause it is so freakin' easy to prove he plagiarized them, if someone just goes to google and writes down "Stiles, Wierwille".

“Dr.”

I take exception to this. Those of us who believe there's nothing after this life have EVERY reason to live. What we lack is a reason to DIE. By which I mean, we can understand the value of sacrifice as well as the next patriot (there ARE, in fact, atheists in foxholes), but we understand that sacrifice as being for other people, not for reward.

Never thought about how wierd it is. You are not emotionally scarred are you? :)

Whoops-that is correct, sir! To be specific, he also said Leonard was good with experiences (and vpw derided experience often) but not with The Word. And H1ggins supposedly gave him his Bullinger stuff: "he writes like you teach."

I agree with Kit...watch what you post. During my divorce and custody dispute, my lawyer cautioned me about talking, emailing, posting, etc... about the case while it is in progress. ANY KIND of statments made by me could be used in court against me. And in ANY kind of court battle, whether it be civil, family, or criminal...it's just not worth taking chances. The internet is a public forum, and as such, can be accessed by anyone for any reason. That alone should scream caution to those involved in any sort of legal action.