WhiteDove

I never believed they were written by people in the Way, I assumed that they were in public domain or had been cleared for copyrights.

I wonder how many other people have more than one log in here it seems to happen often to me. Now keeping up with one is more than I can do so I'm not interested, but are they all requested to pick one? I know of at least one that has two active log ins. So is that ok providing that you are not using it to circumvent a suspension.

I never said one could not have an opinion , that is different than conclusive fact. What I said is that one can not reach a verdict as many have without a fair hearing. Surely on this Independence weekend you are not suggesting that we decide guilt or innocence by the internet?

But we havent been to court now have we ? ....... and if we had your eyewitness reports would have been subject to examination which again they were not were they? given that fact you have no point of comparison, you are comparing a fair day in court vs no day in court, trial by internet..... I bet every court in the US would reject that as a non binding decision.

Duh..... A quick look through the threads will tell one that for years despite the fact that many have corrected this misconception some still don't seem to get it. Count the times some of us are referred to as such and you will see that it is clear the intent, even though some don't have the guts to actually name us. It was not a generic term, look up who is consistently called Wierwille apologists it is a small few. and you are perfectly aware of it so don't act dumb it does not become you.

Well since my name is mentioned I suppose I'll respond now. First regarding censoring I believe that I acknowledged that fact in my response to your post. As to: I do have to say had it not been for the personal attack which I'll point out had nothing to do with the subject and the GreaseSpot mission either. I had no intention of posting there.( I also have not posted on the I read the book thread either and won't unless someone decides to take a cheap shot at me.) This also was disrespectful unnecessary and an assumption that we live in any state of denial or otherwise. It contributed nothing to the subject at hand as you pointed out and yet it stands uncontested to this day as well as the other attacks directed through the tread which also contribute zero to the threads point. It would be easier to accept that your goal was to maintain the purpose of the thread had those posts been addressed as well rather than only those that disagreed with the general GreaseSpot mission. Exactly what? does this remark have to do with a discussion of her journey through the Way? I submit nothing...... As far as the charge that we were promoting how great Wierwille was , totally bogus... I responded to peoples posts I simply put forth that everyone ,and that includes VP has a right to their fair day in court before being convicted that's a right I take seriously ,maybe you don't but I'd find that hard to believe. If we let it slide once based on who we like or don't like then it slides for all of us. I'll speak out against that, read the lives of those who were wrongfully accused and you'll see why. The whole problem on the thread can be traced back to the original post which you allowed. Had it been deleted it would have ended the mess. It wasn't which left the choice to fend for myself, which I chose to do. I could have started another thread but the posts were on that one, I believe I remember something about not dragging other threads into one another at one point being discussed. You think I was disrespectful ,your opinion I don't I never called her any names , I have no beef with her. I simply pointed out that her book may have several motives for being published, that's a fair statement. I also never said it was true or untrue, only that it had no documentation other than her opinion, or testimony, that also is a fair statement. As such it makes the book a here it is believe it or not choice each can accept it on their own criteria. Mine requires more than I said so. I'd do the same with any other book . I think those are honest considerations when spending money, you don't Each to their own. Regarding victims you say clearly , because you accept their story, the truth is there is no hard documentable proof , there is no legal opinion either. so it comes down to which side of the fence you choose to live on and believe. I have stated many times ,but for the sake of saving someone posting again a wrong perception I'll say again here while there is no documentable evidence for the case as well there is none against it either. It comes down to whose word you believe. Me I prefer to not convict anyone without fair hearing some others don't share that American right, I'm glad it is not up to them to choose. In the end what's done is done you made your choice, so be it........ If you asked in this case do I believe it was a fair one ? I'd have to say No. Because I fail to see where any rules were broken, I doubt any of the words on the thread will go down in time as any great substance so no great loss there being deleted. As far as the continuing snipes on a thread where we can't respond I suppose I could start a thread Snipe At Whitedove Here..... I'm ok with that.........

Again peoples ignorance of the subject shows, I'll just point out that John has a real job....... again for the gazillionth time. If you want to take cheap shots at least do some research before opening your mouth. And while I'm adding opinions I'll add one more . Although not a CES devote I watched for many years as John criss crossed the USA and other places. I can't see where his attempts to help people brought him any great gain, I doubt it was much fun living on the road. If for nothing else I respect John for his service, I saw no one else offering anywhere close to what he did .

Well I have to admit Bumpy makes me laugh sometimes. I can appreciate him for that if nothing else. I've found that everyone here has something to contribute sometimes it just takes awhile to appreciate it . Why even the so called Wierwille apologists have their merits........

No change of point,. it was a silly possibility, given that what people told me as I have repeatedly said did not equal following like sheep. I was never one that lamented about being controlled. So the obvious answer to the question was No.

I believe he has a real job......... Well looks like another satisfied customer.who can seperate the teaching from the teacher

Not at all , only their example is contaminated I can still look at scripture and see truth. And where they shared scripture it remains true. Where the did not it does not.

That would be their option.

I saw Fred today standing on the corner with his bullet proof vest, I wonder does he really think no one knows where his head is?

Again different subject, following the word and conduct of those who are our spiritual leaders. And we ourselves are to teach it to others by word and example. Have nothing to do with the accusation that someones conduct makes scripture null and void . Scripture stands on its own , some human really has no chance of changing it into untruth by their actions. How people receive it from such a person is another matter. some may ,some may not but it changes the scripture zero.

You burned nothing up ........his premise was that because the were Nazis and immoral he was glad that we did not use their abilities by the same stretch we should question everyone that contributes to the cure of diseases then to see if they have some fault as well we may not want to use their abilities as well. People use information that is useful to their cause moral faults do not nullify information.

Apparently does not mean opinion it means clearly, easily percieved, obvious –adjective 1. readily seen; exposed to sight; open to view; visible: The crack in the wall was readily apparent. 2. capable of being easily perceived or understood; plain or clear; obvious: But seriously, there has been FAR more than the required and biblical two witnesses given that accounts and proves the (now dead) Vicster's sexual abuse, (and its the kind of testimony that would be accepted at any court you want to name, be it related to a direct charge, or at showing a pattern of previous behavior by the defendant), that your (IMNSHO) purported loyalty to the biblical requirement of needing 2 or more witnesses to accuse is shown to be the scam that it is. A scam that is blindly loyal to to the reputation of one Victor Paul Wierwille. So take your own implicit advice. ... The man is dead. Like sleeping dogs, let him, and his now rotten reputation lie. .... And move on with your life. Have a nice day! I have a PM to prove my point, I'll honor the person who sent it privacy, had they wanted it posted they would have done so .

For a Christian this is doctrine and yet people lie all the time, it does not make the doctrine wrong only the person Wierwilles acts were repugnant because the doctrine ( I am NOT going to use your phrase "scriptural truth" in regards to anything he taught) was foul. Most Christians accept the Bible as scriptural triuth when and where anyone shares it including VP , as he did. It is simply truth from the Bible Bible verses are not subject to personal sin. They can not be foul when shared . His acts point directly to the holes in his doctrine and the lack of real consistant truth in them. The whole kit and kaboodle of his teachings imo was a mish mosh to allow him to live out his control fantasies and perversions. When you look at the results ,the assumption that he taught any genuine "scriptural truth" at all is highly questionable WD keeps using the 1+1 example...is it really that hard to add this concept up? that 1+1 really does equal 2? I see plenty of results from his teaching. In fact given the number of people that were involved in the Way I'd lay odds that far more than the ones here would say that they have benifited than have not.

This has nothing to do with teaching. A sexual predator can teach truth as well as anyone else. his moral conduct does not prevent him form speaking on any subject. Again you are talking about a separate issue how his speaking is received. that will differ with the listener. Some may be willing to overlook moral faults to gain information. I went to my mechanic this week to see about a car problem, I did not ask or care about his moral life I just wanted to gain his expertise in automotive work. If he was a rapist or a saint the information that he had to offer me was the same his actions did not change the information.

Exactly .....beliefs I don't think he figured that he needed to list everyone , or that he could . the belief in the Bible as scriptural truth is a belief That means when John D.Schmitt said The right to believe is absolute. The right to act is subject to reasonable regulation. They are two separate things, belief of scriptural truth ( which is a belief) and actions are not one in the same. We absolutely have the right to believe and accept scriptural truth despite or regardless of any good or bad actions by the speaker. Actions of the speaker while subject to civil law as they should be ,do not however change the truth of scripture or earthly knowledge one can learn from their words into untruth.

He clearly separated beliefs and conduct as two separate things, he made no reference to conduct changing scriptural truth. or any truth for that matter. And rightly so he realized that conduct is what it is good or bad. neither changes beliefs of scripture physical actions do not change beliefs, or scriptural truth.