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.

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?

Want to know what the glove looks like, what it’s made of, how it fits? Want to know where in your imagination to look for that yet undiscovered manuscript? Want to know how to MAKE something fit that doesn’t fit? There’s a Bible version for that.

Why would God need a witness?

How's about some Saturday Night Blues?

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.

I have no problem believing there is no karma.

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.

Sin is a real religious construct. Sin is a real religious concept. The concept doesn't exist outside a religious framework..

That's where vpw's cadre of sin came in. First, they procure the victim and get them to go to him in private. Afterwards, one of them "coincidentally" ran into her as she left, trying to make sense of what happened. This exit counselor, so to speak, can tell her how she was privileged and so on, and watch her for signs of exploding. If she seemed ready to spill the beans on having been raped/sexually assaulted, then the exit counselor passed word. Quickly, she's announced as unworthy in some way and kicked off grounds. This attacks her self-esteem while she's trying to make sense of things, and let's some innocent people possibly see she was kicked out for supposedly some weakness on her part (kept vague, of course.) She's immediately put on a nice, slow bus. That's really cheap, and since they're in the middle of nowhere, it will take her a day to reach home if she is close, dayS if she is not. That gives the twi propaganda machine lots of time to contact all the leadership in the person's home area and destroy her reputation. That way, if she says something to them, they've already "poisoned the well." Furthermore, it isolates her further, damaging her self-esteem even more. Any time someone was any kind of liability, twi shoved them on a bus. Sometimes it meant a person took a WEEK to get home, because they were in no shape to go home alone, and got lost somewhere in the US. That happened a few times. lcm documented vpw doing it in his book "VP and Me." (We discussed that in the thread "VP and Me in Wonderland.") A man in residence evidenced some sort of event- he was incoherent. Any normal place- where having a fiduciary responsibility to care for people they accepted responsibility for- would have had him taken to a hospital and evaluated. What did vpw do? He CONFRONTED the man! As if this was a sane response. Then he sent the man home on a bus. lcm worried about the man getting home, but vpw told him to stop worrying and the man would get home. A WEEK later, he turned up at home. That's the most anyone at twi knew about what happened to the man. He showed up at home a WEEK later. I wish we had details about his ordeal, and about what medical situation had happened. Was it acute malnutrition or sleep deprivation? Was it some undiagnosed brain condition? Was it something else? We'll never know, and vpw never cared. We know at least one woman got sent home (IIRC, after getting raped hitchhiking on LEAD when she was sent alone on someone's vehicle) and she was a mess psychologically when she left. Nobody cared. She was in no shape to take care of her connections, and she got lost somewhere in the US. Several days later, she made it home.

That's where the reasons given in the Appendices come in. What should have been so obvious became overshadowed by deceit, lies and powerful positions in twi.

This was the catalyst to us finally deciding to leave. I was young but I remember thinking "I didn't know we needed this research paper? That's kinda crazy. How is this not the most obvious thing in the world?"

I should… I mean, I want to… I just can’t… People still call this schmuck “Dr.” Even John Schoenheit does. WITAF!?!

Not even close to what was "taught" in Christian Family and Sex. *Just spit in your hand*

"Like their leader VP, men (and some women) used those reasons above to get what they wanted leaving behind darkness and brokenness. " Now, now, "credit" where "credit" is due. (Or, possibly give "the devil" his due.) That sounded almost coincidental that vpw and some of his cadre likewise did those evil deeds. Let's be more specific, and more honest, about it. vpw was the originator. He set about to commit such sinful, criminal, and evil actions. Although it's possible that someone may have been interested in the cadre because of that, more likely they were all brought in the way lcm was brought in. vpw groomed lcm to commit those kinds of things. He told him all kinds of things, some of which we've heard. He told him- on the subject of fidelity in marriage- that the married lcm "was going to have to loosen up on those sorts of things if he wants to lead God's people." Since vpw had previously convinced lcm that vpw had an inside track on what God Almighty thought and wanted, that left lcm trying to accept that God Almighty wanted him to cheat on his own wife. And so on. vpw set up his network to target women, and when he set up that network, he groomed a number of people around him to accept or embrace that kind of thinking. That's why they were willing to help vpw rape and molest and drug the women that he did those things to. I mean, it wasn't a one-night, one conversation thing, he spent months carefully grooming and indoctrinating his inner circle so that there was a network of people close to him that would accept that and help him. Not everyone was indoctrinated this way. vpw worked hard at this, possibly harder than at anything else he did. He would find a moment to talk to only one person. He would make a small comment to them, and monitor their reaction. If they reacted in a godly fashion, he backed off and didn't bring it up again. We saw that with J1m D00p. When vpw spoke to him alone in a car, vpw tried to tell him that God Almighty was fine with orgies. J1m was resistant and revolted by the suggestion, and later convinced himself that, somehow, he misunderstood what happened, that he couldn't possibly have heard vpw say what he had heard vpw say. After that, vpw fine-tuned his approach. That was too heavy-handed and abrupt. So, he made smaller comments, less abrupt. He changed the "temperature" around him, so that discussions about sex weren't quite so out of place. Then he could make a single comment and dismiss it later as a misunderstanding if it went awry. AFAIK, Ralph D never recounted such an incident... and I doubt he was left out. I think he was approached like everyone else, but when vpw baited the hook, RD didn't take the bait- he wasn't immoral and wasn't going to be. So, vpw just dropped a passing comment and went about his business- but made a mental note to keep RD well away from the thick of things, and not to approach RD again. Over time, vpw had a list of people around him who were receptive and groomed- every time, a little further, a little further. He also had a list of people to keep clear of his sex maniac operation- people who could spoil things and ruin his well-organized sin machine after all the trouble he went through to set it up. But they had their uses also- mainly, their clean-cut natures were "evidence" that nothing untoward could be happening around vpw. After all, in public, he said nothing in favor of it, and there were moral, godly people around him, so they would have blown the whistle on him. So, yes, the comments in the appendices started with vpw. As with anything else in twi, some people just parroted his phrases without ever stopping to question whether or not they were correct, godly or right- or to think at all, for that matter. Whenever we saw multiple people parroting the same error-ridden sentences, it was as good as having vpw's initials or signature on the phrase, endorsing and recommending it all around.

Since we're off-topic anyway, a brief link. Someone asked about the contents of Schoenheit's anti-adultery paper, the one that got him fired for writing. It's still readable in the link in the "Greasespot Cafe Document and Audio Files" thread. The link to that Adultery paper is https://web.archive.org/web/20030219041757/http://greasespotcafe.com/waydale/misc/adultery.htm You can read, or reread, it for yourself.

I would like to request some caution here: the topic of this thread is questioning TWI doctrine, but if we start getting into arguments for and against the reality of claimed supernatural experience, I am concerned the discussion will no longer be "About the Way" and would instead fall rightly under "Matters of Faith." I'm trying to head this off now because I don't want people to come back later and say "why did you let so and so atheist say this and not let the Christian say that?"

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.

Could it be Challenging Counterfeit or Angels Of Light? My copies, if I still have them, are probably buried in a box that's still waiting to be unpacked from my last move. Let's just say that finding them is not exactly high on my list of priorities at the moment. Yes, the mind is a terrible thing to lose. The same cannot be said of books filled with bullshonta.

Mmmph I am reminded of that book on ectoplasm and other such phenomena that TWI used to “study.” Wasn’t it published by American Christian Press, but later victor distanced himself from it? Someone will know what I’m talking about. A mind is a terrible thing to lose - only so much room for bullshonta.

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.

It's pretty obvious that no Bible verses actually SAY any of that. It was what vpw called "private interpretation." If I were to go strictly by what's in the Bible, and refused to guess, I'd have to make the following conclusions. 1) The presence of the spirit would make fruit of the spirit possible. 2) Nothing is said to be required for them otherwise- no practice, doctrine, etc. So, the "you have to" anything thing is all personal opinion. 3) Strictly speaking, walking by the written revelation isn't required either. If you do right but don't know which verse says to do the specific behavior, it doesn't undo what you did. 4) As if it needs rephrasing and repeating, neither manifestations nor gifts of the spirit are required. 5) Nothing said that the ONLY way to demonstrate any of those is by fruit of the spirit. People can acquire those elsewhere, with varying degrees of success. There's non-Christians who are confident they've achieved "peace", and probably have. But having the spirit would sure make it a lot easier, by way of the fruit of the spirit.

Between the 88 and 89 ROA, lcm drew his line in the sand. vpw used to take people in isolation on grounds, and occasionally threaten to kick them out for incompetence unless they swore an oath of allegiance to him. He pulled this privately and in quiet because vpw knew it was wrong. vpw taught lcm. Among the things he taught him was that lcm was going to have to "loosen up" on the subject of sex and sex acts with women other than his wife if he wanted to lead God's people. He convinced lcm that vpw was the real thing. So, when lcm did things vpw did, lcm believed they were OK with God Almighty, so he didn't cover his tracks so much..which is why he got caught. So, 1985 was "Passing of the Patriarch." For a few years, lcm wandered the grounds in a fog (according to him.) After that (1988), lcm drew his line in the sand. He contacted ALL the twi leaders above twig level. He demanded an oath of allegiance to him PERSONALLY. We know this because one of our posters got this message, and phoned lcm directly. He said it sounded like lcm was saying they all had to follow him BLINDLY (his emphasis, not mine.) lcm claimed that was what he was already doing. "If that's what you really think, you can kiss my @$$$" *hangs up* lcm demanded that everyone choose between himself and Geer. Most leaders said they refused to choose among men, and/or said they chose to stand with God, period. So, lcm fired all of them. In one fell swoop, 80% of all the leaders in twi were fired, and letters were sent to everyone with the names of everyone in their state who was canned, and saying they were canned for following their lusts and so on. When that happened, the people- who knew the locals but didn't know lcm- stuck with their local leaders rather than lcm. Since lcm kicked them all out simultaneously, he made it convenient for them to associate with each other. In different places, at least for a time, the locals all split from twi as a group. At ROA 89, attendance was 20% what it had been at ROA 88. Immediately following ROA 89, some of the people who attended left. (Like me-I was there to buy out the bookstore, to observe things for myself to make informed decisions, and to be on-site if, somehow, lcm got sensible and started fixing things. As for the splits, 20% stayed with lcm, 80% left. I summarized the split around the time by saying that the love left, and the fire stayed. So, the compassionate people were out, and none were to be found in twi after that, when you returned. What was left was people who were willing to be loyal even if it was not sensible to do so. So, people running on lots of conviction- the fire. So, that's why twi seemed so different from ROA 90 onward (until lcm called off the ROAs.)

Well, there you have it. One of the most private of private interpretations.

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

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.

"...it's not even a sin to eat meat on Fridays anymore..... but I bet there's still guys in hell on a meat rap! 'I thought it was retro-active! I ate a baloney sandwich. This guy had a beef jerky.' How'd you like to do Eternity for a beef jerky?"

I can't even name a single GROUP which will allow any questioning of their dogmas. I have met Christians willing to agree to disagree, and to interact despite differences. They've been from different denominations, for that matter. (Not twi, mind you...)

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.

1. "Sadly, I cannot get this man to accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God." Ok, let's start there. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God. That's part of the problem right there. The Bible speaks of the Word of God quite often, but it never has the self-awareness to declare itself to be that Word. Maybe, just maybe, you can be wrong about the Bible being the Word of God and still be a good Christian. 2. "I think he would like it to be..." Well, no one asked you what you think, did they? Maybe he has no preference one way or another and is just waiting for you to make a plausible case for your thesis. 3. "... but is overly obstinate and has an awful attitude towards God and his plan for man's redemption." A lot to unpack there. Has it occurred to you that maybe YOU're the one being "obstinate" with an "attitude" that won't budge no matter how many facts he presents to counter your preconceived notion that the Bible is the Word of God? Like, maybe YOU're the stubborn one, not him? Because he shows you the Bible, and you start making excuses. Oh, that's the Old Testament. God's different now. He's really kind and gentle. He did what he did before because he HAD to to fulfill the plan of redemption. Problem: The plan of redemption is only the plan of redemption because God wanted it that way. It didn't have to be. He could just accept an apology without shrugging his shoulders and saying oh well because someone found a particular fruit of a particular tree to yummy to pass up (He also could have put that tree ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET but instead put it right in front of two people who did not know good and evil; then said don't eat from that tree. Not exactly a strong case for omniscience. It's like I put a cookie on the table in front of my 7-year-old and said "Don't eat that," then walked out of the room. He's gonna eat the cookie. I'm not all knowing, and I know that). So your friend, I submit, is not stubborn. Rather, he's amused at the contortions you'll twist yourself into to deny what's obviously written. There IS not idiom of permission in the Bible. Bullinger, for what he's worth, appears to be the only one who makes an issue of it. It's hardly a scholarly consensus. The existence of other figures of speech does not verify the "idiom of permission" as something the Bible employs on a regular basis. It is, however, an extraordinarily convenient tool for believers to employ whenever their holy book shows God doing what no good God would ever do, even though the book is unambiguous about it being God who did it. But that's just the old testament. Unless, of course, you're holding back tithes from the apostles in Acts, which is New Testament. (Oh, but it doesn't say God did that. It was Satan -- even though the Bible doesn't say THAT either). The Bible is filled with examples of God saying he'll do something and then saying He did it. It doesn't say he allowed it to happen or he allowed Satan to do it. It says HE did it. Now, it COULD have said he allowed Satan to do it, very easily. Look at Job. Satan did those things. It says so. Yeah, he got God's permission, but it says that, clearly. There's no ambiguity, and there's no "this is how it works normally." A figure of speech is supposed to be a statement that is true in essence though not literally true. "It's raining cats and dogs" is a figure of speech. "This car can stop on a dime" is a figure of speech. A figure of speech is not supposed to be a way for you to get the Bible to say the opposite of what it clearly says just because what it clearly says is inconvenient for your theology. God ordered the execution of a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath. He didn't give man permission to kill the offending sabbath breaker. He gave man an order -- cast those stones! God didn't allow divorce. He prescribed it. He didn't allow Satan to kill all the firstborn of Egypt. He had it done. And he DID have a choice. When my kid offends me, I have a choice how to discipline him. You have no idea how many times my discipline has stopped short of killing him because he did his chores between sunset on Friday night and Saturday night! So here's a thought. Bear with me: Maybe your friend isn't the stubborn one in this equation. Maybe he's not the one being inflexible. Maybe, just maybe, he's given this far more thought than you have.

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."