oldiesman

Dot Matrix, For someone who doesn't want to dig, you sure did here. But please spare me the condescending guilt trip routine. I was rendering an opinion to something Excathedra said. We are allowed to do that here. I didn't doubt her testimony, or call her a liar. If you don't see the difference, that's not my problem. And BTW, Excathedra is a big girl and doesn't need you to be her nursemaid and mother hen. She's a big girl and can speak for and defend herself. If she was offended and hurt by my post, she can call me on it herself, or PM me privately anytime. WOW! here you have maligned a fellow believer in Christ, one who has done you no harm. Does your nastiness and cattiness have no bounds? Are you mad at me so that gives you license to try to hurt someone else in the process? What is wrong with you? You have based your statement on vicious rumors, backbiting and innuendo. No proof at all, yet you state this as happening, manner of factly. You are pitiful and petty. You tried to hurt people by that statement, but I think all you've done is damage your own credibility. Imagine, one of the premier anti-Wierwille attack-dog-storytellers engaging in vicious rumor and innuendo.

Goey, It is not my burden to prove it false. I opined that the statement "innocents died at VP's hands" was a false accusation. That is my opinion. If Rascal or you or anyone else wants to prove the statement to be true, thereby proving my opinion to be false, go right ahead and try to. BTW, nice try in changing the meaning of Rascal's statement "innocents died at VP's hands" to "VPW had a role in it". :) :lol: I am reasonably sure Rascal meant EXACTLY as I took it, that VPW was directly responsible for the deaths of people...

Doojable, Before I go accusing the Way of new doctrine, i.e, now teaching that born again believers can turn into the devil's children, I would have to find out from the source. I suspect that if these things were said by LCM, that Craig was perhaps performing one of his rants. But I really don't know. If you can prove that TWI now teaches that, go ahead. But my previous statement that those ex-way who are calling Goey a child of the devil "must not respect VPW's teachings too much any more" to refer to him that way, makes perfect sense to me.

Goey I am going to be absent for a couple of days and can't answer any more of your posts until then. This thread is so much fun. Have a good day. :)

Goey, I will answer your question this way. A poster said "innocents died at VP's hands". I stated that was a false accusation. I'm not calling the poster a liar, because the poster believes that allegation to be true and yet, it is an allegation that can't be reasonably proven, so I believe it is false. A lot of what we post are simply opinions. I have mine, you have yours, etc. Try not to be so sensitive.

Am not hiding behind anything. I think there's a way to call someone's post false and exaggerated without calling the poster a liar. Are you ok Goey? You don't seem your usual calm self. Perhaps you are having a bad day so I would suggest you take a deep breath, relax, sit back and enjoy a couple of slugs:

No it isn't. There is a difference between calling someone a liar, and saying a statement of theirs is false and exaggerated. Sunesis you are an intelligent person and I'm sure you can understand this if you want. For instance, if someone said they believe PFAL is God - Breathed. Is that person a liar? No, not if they believe that statement to be true. On the other hand, what they have said is false and exaggerated and has been proven to be false and exaggerated. So you can say that that poster engages in exaggeration, without calling them a liar. Same can be said for the statement "innocents died at VP's hands". That statement is false and exaggerated and can't be proven in any reasonable way. But since the person writing it believes it to be true, the poster shouldn't be called a liar.

Goey you have just falsely accused me of calling witnesses liars. There are over 4,000 posts of mine, and maybe 1 of them, several years ago, referred to a poster as lying. So shame on you for the false accusation. While I believe there is a distinct probability that some posters repeatedly engage in false accusations, exaggerations and innuendo, calling direct eye witnesses outright liars is an ignorant act that I do not engage in. Regarding your "child of the devil" comment; Way believers, even former ones, who call you a child of the devil must not respect VPW's teachings too much any more to refer to you, a known born again believer, as a child of the devil.

That statement doesn't make sense. To the best of my knowledge Way believers don't go around accusing born again believers of being children of the devil.

Let's start with one example, Dr. Juedes. His "Godly Mission" is to expose the evils of twi. But talk to him about anything good that happened in twi, anything that glorifies God, or how folks got blessed, and he's not interested. It doesn't serve his purpose. Look, when people consider only bad and not good, something's wrong someplace! Goey if you ever talk to Dr. Juedes, mention to him that you probably got born again in twi (something you wrote a long time ago that I have never forgotten) and see what his reaction is.

Goey, its a pity you started this thread on Friday when the weekend is approaching and I'll be absent. :) Golly, how about Rascal's false accusation that innocents died at VP's hands? She is condemning Wierwille for killing people, with no regard to Wierwilles heart or intent on these matters. She's judge, jury and executioner. That is condemnation. I know all Pharisees were not murderers. But no, its not fair to compare Wierwille to those Pharisees who Jesus called children of the devil, and later murdered him. Wierwille gets regularly compared to the worst of the worst of society by some posters who focus and magnify his sins and see only through that little prism.

Rascal, when you post it usually recalibrates itself. :)

Exposition of a cruelty is good. But what I think some posters do is go way beyond exposition into evil surmising, judging of people's hearts and motives, pharaseeism. All the while portraying themselves as righteous believers who want to rescue folks from twi. For one, I think it is extremely inconsiderate to keep on condemning and ridiculing folks who choose their religion... for better or for worse, it is their choice to be in twi. Second, my BS COUNTER goes off the scale when reading that these unrelenting condemnations are supposedly motivated by God, Jesus, holy spirit, or liking them to Jesus condemning the Pharisees. The Pharisees were children of the devil who ultimately murdered our Lord Jesus. And some of you have the gall to compare Wierwille to them. Shame on some of you.

Thank God Wierwille and TWI were around to reach me and thousands of folks with the Word of God. Heck, I'm still glad twi and the offshoots are still around... they can help folks who need help. BTW I feel the same way about the RC church, despite their past atrocities. God will deal with VPW sins; "vengence is mine, I will repay" saith the Lord. Hey its FRIDAY. Getting ready for the weekend? I am. :)

Apples and oranges. Jesus and Paul were accountable for what they said, i.e., you knew it was them making the statements. You can look in their eyes, see them and even talk back. Many times, it was up close and personal. There was a genuine, human, in your face give and take. There's something anticeptic and cruel about finger pointing others' sins anonymously behind a computer. Yes I do characterize that as evil and hateful sometimes. Sometimes I feel like the biggest finger pointers should have a website dedicated to THEIR sins and see how they cope.

OK Waysider, thanks for the correction. I was quoting from the PFAL syllabus and hadn't looked at the advanced. Thanks.

Eagle, I clicked your link and saw a small statement that might need revision, regarding the unforgivable sin: I am unaware that VPW ever taught that the seed boys get "unholy spirit." What was taught and memorialized in the syllabus was "the seed of Satan". Just like one would receive the seed of Christ, another would receive the seed of Satan. Whatever that seed is seems vague now. I never really understood it, honestly. I think the teaching developed into something entirely different than "spirit" or even "unholy spirit". In fact wasn't it LCM who taught it was some kind of a physical organ or transmitter in the body (as told in athletes)?

BTW, if you will send me a complimentary copy of your book, I will read it and give you a detailed critique from one who doesn't hate Wierwille. :o :)

I think that would be better. If you can do it in a way that doesn't get personal, then the debate would be about ideas and not people.

Mike, you made an agreement to limit your posting? You dirty dawg you. :o :D

Can you share your specific incident(s) with all the details so folks can understand you better? Without specific facts I'm unable to make a judgment about the situation you speak of one way or the other.

yes that is about right.

Waysider: you seem perturbed about something. here is my response: (1) when did I ever say that Wierwille did no wrong? At times he was swell. At times, he wasn't. (2) who said I have a "knight in shining armor" image of Wierwille? (3) I never suggested that he never publically taught that "we(TWI believers ) were the chosen ones and had replaced the Jews as God's people." But now that you mention it, Wierwille taught that all born again believers are "God's Chosen People" and he didn't believe that today's Jews were God's Chosen People because he didn't believe the Jews were the biblical Judeans. Even so, I also think he believed that today's Jews are just like everybody else, body and soul before getting born again. I got the impression that he taught that they have no special connection with God or immunity from death resulting from being unsaved. All of this does not mean he hated Jews. It means he saw them just like everyone else... in need of a Lord and Saviour.

Don't know what to tell you other than I have mixed emotions at present.

I don't make that connection. I believe a person can believe in Revisionist thought, without hating the Jews. The Revisionists believe that the Holocaust, or various parts of it, was not true. That belief is not necessarily equal to or means that one hates Jews. It "can" mean that, but it would depend on other factors too. Its just not fair to label someone as hating a whole race/religion of people because he may have different views on what occurred in the past.