oldiesman

Abigail, thanks for mentioning.

Ginger, As far as I can tell, there does seem to be a difference of opinion on what actually constitutes rape; and I don't know if there's any one set answer right now, maybe all viewpoints need to be considered. But I'm listening to all viewpoints and asking questions when I have doubts. Thanks.

Thank you again, Rafael.

Dot Matrix, Thank you for this response; it's been very helpful. You make lots of sense in your posts, and I'm reading and deeply considering everything you say. Thanks.

QQ, I see what you're saying, but really, do you have to bring Hitler up again? Hitler was a military dictator who presided over the murdering of millions of people. In our world he's probably the worst tyrant who ever drew breath. And you're comparing him to VPW? So let's say VPW raped 10 women, and had voluntary sex with 200 willing women, during his 40 years of pastoring. For the record, I think that's just as bad as if the numbers were reversed. ok? He blew it big time.

LongGone where do you get that from? I never, ever suggested ANY woman was a slut, especially Excathedra, or even those who might willingly have had sex with VPW. And my argument never suggested it was about Excathedra's actual experience but my doubts about the article she was quoting. Excathedra explained her situation on another thread before this one, that she was in a moving bus and couldn't just leave; so after I heard that, the thought never crossed my mind that she wasn't a victim; as a matter of fact, I think I admitted on another thread that I thought she was VPW's sex slave. That's very bad. So I have no doubt that Excathedra was taken advantage of big time. Ok?

Wayfer Not!, My view is that genuine healing comes from God and Christ, not forums on Greasespot Cafe. "He sent his word, and healed them". Forums on GS are full of varying opinions and debate, and as long as folks like myself are respectful to others, we are (or should be) able to post dissenting opinions without worrying about offending others. Those are the GS rules. Ginger, As best as I know, I've been respectful to posters, and when I haven't, I've apologized. But it looks like what you may be really suggesting here is: "agree with me, otherwise keep your mouth shut"? Dot Matrix, Yes I'm fine. But I thought it was interesting you said if I was "caught up in it then I am also a victim". Thank you for trying to comfort me in that you say I was also a victim. But consider this too: if I was caught up in the doctrine of devils, then can't you apply that same logic to VPW? He ALSO was caught up in this doctrine of devils, no? He (VPW) was a victim of the devil too then, wasn't he? Rafael, Thanks again for the support and trying to see the viewpoints I've been expressing. Lindyhopper, I still have a problem with that word "rape". If you're talking about VPW administering those date rape drugs (which admittedly is still hard for me to believe) then you'd have to call it rape. No question about it. Other than that, I don't see it as rape, but more like sexual harassment. Does it matter? Well, sexual harassment conveys one idea, and rape conveys another. Rape conveys that you simply couldn't say no, and couldn't get up and walk out. But we've seen testimonies of women declining VPW's advances, so I know it was possible. But certainly please don't misunderstand me, its bad enough for me and others who respected VPW to now think that he had a very sleazy sexual problem. Orange Cat, I think you've distorted Rafael's intent to be fair and intellectually honest. He's bringing up viewpoints, just like I am. Why do you have to label him as bordering on an enabler? He's trying to be objective, just like I am. Alfakat, What difference does it make whether I may or may have not discussed these points on Waydale? If it does, please let me know because I'm missing your point.

Orange Cat and Evan, I am saying all, because the premise of the argument Excathedra brought up applies to all pastors according to her article: If that statement is true, then you may say that about VPW and all other pastors in TWI too, right? I think what's fair is fair, if you're going to apply that standard to VPW you might as well apply it to all of them. A side comment to Orange Cat: you may dislike me very much, hate my guts even, but in the future if you want me to answer your questions please address me by my handle.

This is the part that I still think hasn't been proven yet, that ALL ministers in TWI were sexual predators who weren't merely interested in (unacceptably) satisfying their sexual needs, but much more than that had this evil mind set that made their actions equal to committing rape on their prey. It's still a little extreme, in my opinion.

Def59, Is the reason why you believe PFAL contained a multiplicity of errors because VPW was as you call him "a scam artist", or is it because of the actual content of PFAL? Try to separate PFAL doctrine from the man Wierwille. This is what Rafael is doing, and I think its exceedingly admirable.

Oakspear, Actually, on the front of Koestler's book he says they became the cradle of Western Jewry; but nonetheless if Rafael thinks it should be put on the list and he says there's DNA evidence supporting his conclusions, it's good enough for me.

Rafael, Thanks and nice job so far. May I make a few suggestions that might improve things? (1) -- I think it might look better in column format, with 2 columns, like a table. The first column heading would read "What PFAL says" (or what other of VPW's writings say) then list in the rows in that column what PFAL says and document the exact page. The second column heading would be "what the bible says" or "other research" or something like that. Then in those cells you would put your responses. Finally for the "discussion" part you may want to use endnotes. I don't know how difficult this is to set up, I'm not knowledgeable how to do this on a webpage, but I do think it would look and feel more professional. But if it's too much of a hassle, then perhaps if you use your existing format and just put in parenthesis the actual page from where you are quoting VPW from, that would suffice. (2) -- Error 9 -- I think this is a big big deal and much further discussion is needed. If its true that the gospels are also written TO us, just as much as the epistles, then I think apparent contradictions between the two need to be explained. (3) -- Error 21 -- Just a small note here, but I think The Thirteenth Tribe is still very much contoversial and not definitively proven one way or the other. I've spoken to a few knowledgeable Jews about this book and there is controversy on all sides. But be that as it may, it says on the front cover that "evidence indicates that the Khazars themselves migrated to Poland and formed the cradle of Western Jewry...". So Koestler is contending that the large part of Western Jews of today (Ashkenazim) come from Khazars, they are Ashkenazim; not eastern, Sephardim Jews, which you correctly point out. But Koestler says that "Western" Jews form this group; while you say he is saying "Eastern" Jews that he doesn't say... Well that's it for now..I hope this helps in some small way.

Thanks...

Rafael, What I meant was actually something like the TWI vs. CES website page. Something on the internet that is listed, like a concise comparitive summary, of the actual errors in PFAL according to yours and others biblical research. I think something like that would be useful.

Rafael, Have you generated, or intend to generate, anything like a line-by-line comparison of TWI teachings vs. actual errors? Something in a list format? I think it might be useful to folks like myself and others who still greatly value PFAL, but bearing in mind that not everything in PFAL necessarily agrees with the bible, or other quality biblical interpretations.

Washingtonweather, Thank you for mentioning her as one who does not rise to victim status. I always thought that if anyone was just as responsible for Tom's death as LCM, it was Tom's lovely devoted wife.

I think that if one wanted to, one can make a case that everyone born on this earth has been a victim. It all depends upon your point of view...

I thank you too Zix, and many thanks to you Rafael for the support and kind words. They're appreciated, always.

Ouch.

Another possible reason why some women never said anything: 3. They knew they had sinned by voluntarily committing adultery with VPW, and they kept their sin with VPW in the lockbox. They confessed their sin to God, asked for his forgiveness, and the matter for all intents and purposes, was forgiven and forgotten.

Perhaps, yes. If she wanted to have sex with him. What you seem to be suggesting is, ALL the women in TWI who had sex with ministers didn't have the option to just say "no". They are ALL victims, regardless of whether they wanted it or not. They are ALL victims (of rape?). I think this is as extreme as you can get. Adults that are not mentally ill can say "no", no matter what gender they are. People are responsible for their actions.

The Highway, I would say that whether an individual was highly coerced is a matter to be determined by the facts in that particular situation. If you are claiming that ALL the women in TWI who had sex with ministers were so highly cooerced and manipulated to the point they were not responsible for their actions, then I would have to decline from that extreme viewpoint. However, I will agree that some fall in that category.

A La Prochaine, Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But if the man doesn't do the right thing but instead gives in to his manly urges, why does it always have to be about power and control (which in the argument is like being compared to rape)? This is the premise of this entire argument, that its ALWAYS about power and control in the male. As I said, I don't doubt that happens; but saying it ALWAYS does is, in my opinion, rather extreme.

Radar, You are correct, children are not responsible for their actions. But adults who are not mentally ill, are.

One of the major premises of the soul stealing article seems to be the following: Says who? Would it be at least a possibility that the pastor is having sexual relations because he's horny? I don't doubt there are some cases like this, but I'd like to see the definitive proof that every sexual relation of a pastor/perishioner is about power and control. What about the woman? what if she willingly wants it?