waysider

Walking in Memphis

You say no one here was present during the commission of a crime. That assumption is in error. Exposing children to pornography is a crime in Ohio. People have testified that they were personally present when Wierwille did so. Providing alcohol to minors is a crime in Ohio. Same deal. Transporting people across state lines for the purpose of debauchery is a federal crime. People have given first hand testimony. It is against the law to drug a person and then have sex with them. People have given first hand testimony. These are crimes. People here were personally present. All this is moot anyway because Wierwille is dead. The people who you are insinuating to be liars are alive. You are the accuser, not them. As such, it's up to you to prove they are lying. Oh, yes, I know you never directly called them liars. Irrelevant. That's your implication. Now do a little tap dance and sing a song about how you are really a noble freedom fighter protecting the world from injustices. Riiiight. Here's what I would like to know. Are you engaged in any sort of business activity that might experience a revenue decrease (or increase) if Wierwille's true nature was exposed? Oh, wait. That would call for some speculative thinking on your part. Are you engaged in any sort of business that receives revenue from the sale of Way materials?

Make mine a VSOP. Uhmmmm--------You're buying, right?

For me, the crux of the issue is that Wierwille picked up on this scripture and twisted it around to suit his own purpose, putting us into subjection to the organization. He used it to intimidate us.

Apparently the "duck bill grip" lives on----HERE (They seem to have given up on not looking at your guitar, though.)

He had a beer in his hand while he was "teaching" me.

Totally irrelevant. Prove your accusation.

The ball is still in your court, WD. You have consistently engaged in an accusatory fashion toward people here. Your stance seems to be that their claims against a dead man are false. It is up to you to prove it.

WARNING!----Not Wierwille related Before TWI, I was very involved in music. I had played hundreds of gigs before I ever heard of PFAL. After I got in TWI, I had a Limb Leader (who had no musical background that I was aware of) try to tell me I held my microphone all wrong. He insisted I needed to shape my hand like a duck bill and hold the mic. gently so it would appear to be light in weight. I guess that's cool------------ if you want to look like you're auditioning for Lawrence Welk or something!

I think you just did!

I'm thinking this thread could have been named: Your 401k-----floater or sinker? (Either way, it's in the toilet.)

You have become the accuser. You, in essence, are accusing people of making false statements about a dead man. Do you have proof those statements are false?

We are no longer talking about accusations against Wierwille. We're talking about the accusations you are making against his victims. Prove that their claims are false or stop accusing them of wrong doing. The burden of proof has shifted to you.

You are mistaken, sir. The burden is on you to prove the claims against Wierwille are false. You are mistaken, sir. The burden is on you to prove the claims against Wierwille are false.

The man was a drunken pervert with a heart of stone. He duped you just like he duped all of us. Get over it.

QUOTE (potato @ Mar 4 2009, 11:11 AM) * actually, for the record, the claims have been documented. methinks you should go back and read the federal rules of evidence again. at this point, in a court of law, the documented testimony of vpw's victims would have to be proven false, so this entire discussion is based on an ignorant and/or misinformed assumption of what VPW's rights are as a deceased citizen of the US. ***************************** WD said: No they don't the burdon of proof is on the accuser. ******************************************************** In an odd twist of irony, you fail to recognize that you, sir, are the accuser. You are accusing people of making false statements about Wierwille's nefarious deeds. Since Wierwille is dead, that places the burden on you to prove their statements are false.

Would that be apistia or apeitheia?

WTH asked: Acts 1:8. Then why did the disciples ask Jesus to restore again the kingdom for them? If it [the Kingdom of Heaven] didn't end - then it certainly wouldn't have to be or need to be restored now, would it 1. They didn't ask him to restore the kingdom (of heaven), they made an inquiry. Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 2. Wierwille taught that their question was in reference to the political situation of the day. He used that to illustrate his claim that the disciples were only concerned with the immediate political situation in which they were immersed, not the spiritual significance of the event. He further used that scripture to "prove" that before Pentecost, spiritual matters were beyond the average person's comprehension.

So many wasted words. Wierwille was a conman. He exploited our trust to perpetuate his own life of drunkenness, debauchery and greed. No court ruling could ever change that.

How deep is a sewer?

Much too long ago to really remember how I felt. I do remember, though, that my early impression of Wierwille was that he was a shyster. The twig leader told me it was "unrenewed mind". (I hadn't had the class yet so I didn't even know what that meant.)

To whom is it written? This is vital component of Wierwille's theology. According to Wierwille, all scripture is either addressed to Jew, Gentile or The Church of God. Understanding the "to whom" aspect is reliant upon a proper understanding of the seven administrations, as explained in PFAL. In light of this concept, we see that The Ten Commandments, specifically number 7, "You will not commit adultery.", are not written "to" The Church as it exists in The Age Of Grace. But where did this concept of administrations and "to whom" originate? It is largely accepted that the delineation of administrations (dispensations) was unknown much before the 19th century. Its origins are most closely tied and attributed to the works of John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). His theology promoted a "Right Dividing of The Word" and two "second comings". http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/cathouse/darby.htm The Dispensational Origins of Modern Premillennialism and John Nelson Darby By Jack Van Deventer John Neslon Darby The twentieth century has seen a dramatic paradigm shift in prophetic perspectives, first away from and now back toward its historic roots. This shift away from historic Christianity stemmed from a novel approach to Bible interpretation called dispensationalism which was developed in the 1830s and popularized with the 1909 publication of the Scofield Reference Bible. Dispensationalism, with its unique brand of premillennialism, has been thoroughly pervasive, being prominent in many churches, in bookstores, and among radio Bible teachers. The distinguishing features of dispensationalism are a rigidly applied literalism in the interpretation of Scripture, a compartmentalization of Scripture into "dispensations," and a dichotomy between Israel and the Church. Dispensationalists believe "this present world system . . . is now controlled by Satan" (not by God) and will end in failure and apostasy. Dispensational premillennialists claim that their unique doctrines have been held since the early church, but these claims have been soundly refuted. Far from being the historic position of the church, premillennialism was described in 1813 by David Bogue as an oddity of Church history. Postmillennialism was the dominant eschatology from the Reformation until at least 1859. The doctrine of a secret rapture was first conceived by John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth Brethren in 1827. Darby, known as the father of dispensationalism, invented the doctrine claiming there were not one, but two "second comings." This teaching was immediately challenged as unbiblical by other members of the Brethren. Samuel P. Tregelles, a noted biblical scholar, rejected Darby's new interpretation as the "height of speculative nonsense." So tenuous was Darby's rapture theory that he had lingering doubts about it as late as 1843, and possibly 1845. Another member of the Plymouth Brethren, B.W. Newton, disputed Darby's new doctrine claiming such a conclusion was only possible if one declared certain passages to be "renounced as not properly ours." ******************************************************************************** *********************************** Following him on this theological path was C.I. Scofield (1843-1921). One of Scofield's influencial works that promoted this approach was Rightly Dividing The Word of Truth, published in 1896. http://www.biblebelievers.com/scofield/index.html Here is the table of contents. Note the resemblance of the contents to subjects that were explored in TWI. Introduction CHAPTER 1 The Jew, the Gentile, and the Church of God CHAPTER 2 The Seven Dispensations CHAPTER 3 The Two Advents CHAPTER 4 The Two Resurrections CHAPTER 5 The Five Judgments CHAPTER 6 Law and Grace CHAPTER 7 The Believer's Two Natures CHAPTER 8 The Believer's Standing and State CHAPTER 9 Salvation and Rewards CHAPTER 10 Believers and Professors ************************************************************************** It should be quite clear that the theology of Darby and Scofield were large influences on the basic tenets of TWI and interwoven in the behavior of VPW, and some of the upper leadership, as it relates to sexual conduct. Hence, they used a unique brand of theology (TWI theology) to engage in sexual behavior (get sex). edit: spelling

II Samuel 11:2 And it came to pass in an eventide, that David arose from his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing (rachats) herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. verse 8 And David said unto Uriah, Go down to thy house and wash (rachats) thy feet. II Samuel 25: 41 And she [Abigail] arose, and bowed herself on her face to the earth, and said, Behold, let thine handmaid be a servant to wash (rachats) the feet of the servants of my lord. Psalm 26: 6 I will wash (rachats) mine hands in innocency:---------- ************************************************************* David spied on her from the roof!! In addition, this word is not exclusively used in the sense of "taking a bath". That's an extrapolation derived from our current usage of the word "bathe".

The Biblical accuracy or inaccuracy of dispensationalism is not the issue here. That is a subject for the doctrinal forum. The simple fact is that dispensationalism is a theological system. Wierwille used that system to excuse his sexual indiscretions. Ergo, he used theology (accurate or not) to have sex with women other than his wife.