WordWolf

https://web.archive.org/web/20030219041757/http://greasespotcafe.com/waydale/misc/adultery.htm

 

Production of this document resulted in John being fired by T.W.I trustees in the late 1980's.

Research Paper on Adultery 
by John Schoenheit (formerly TWI Research Dept.)

(It is said that the circulation of this research paper led to John Schoenheit and several others who assisted him being fired from the staff of TWI in the late 80's. It is further said that anyone found reading this paper would never be allowed to rise in leadership in TWI beyond that of a "twig" fellowship coordinator.)

Please make sure that you read the Question & Answer format Appendices at the end of this paper.

Additional comments made by John Schoenheit on WayDale's Forums in May 2000.

 

 

Forward:

In 1982 or 1983 Rev. Ralph Dubofsky and Rev. Vince Finegan came to me. Dr. Wierwille had asked them to do some work on the subject of adultery. Ralph and Vince wanted to know what I knew and if it would help them. I was genuinely surprised at how little I knew about the subject from the Word of God. This paper is the result of those years of study.


Actually, I had done a little study before Ralph and Vince came to me. During my last year in residence in the Way Corps, I was alone in my bedroom when a girl whom I had always thought was attractive came in looking for Diane. She thought that Diane was there and I was gone, and she came in wearing an "exciting" black nightie. I was surprised at how strong my desire was to make love to her. As I struggled to control my mind, I realized that I did not have a scripture to grab onto for support. I literally was not completely positive as to what the Word of God had to say on the subject. I began studying the the Word of God, and I got as far as the Mosaic Law which proscribes the death penalty for adultery. I believed that if God commanded the death penalty for adultery in the Old Testament, His will on the subject could not have changed with the change of administration. If anything, the marriage relationship is even more important now, during the age of Grace, because it portrays the Great Mystery.


The reason for this paper is that I have discovered that not everybody believes that adultery is wrong. This paper is an attempt to clearly set forth the Biblical perspective of adultery and fornication so that every believer has a chance to see the will of God on the subject. This paper is not an attempt to "legislate morality" or to make rules and regulations that will improve the old man. It is an attempt to help every believer come to "an accurate knowledge of the Truth" (I Timothy 2:4). When a person knows where God stands on the subject, he can decide for himself where he wants to stand--on God's Word or off it.

 

====================================================================

Many Christians are confused about adultery and fornication. Some are not sure what the terms mean. Others think they know what the terms mean, but are not sure of God’s position on the subject. This paper is an attempt to clarify what the terms mean in modern English, what the terms meant as they were used in the Word of God, and God’s will concerning adultery and fornication.

Adultery is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful husband or wife." Although that definition is not the biblical one, this paper will show that in the modern sense of the word, as well as the biblical sense, is a sin. The biblical definition of adultery is the breach of a marriage contract, and occurred when a man (married or unmarried) had sexual intercourse with a woman who was either betrothed or married. This definition will be developed from the scriptures in the course of this paper. The word "adultery" was also used by God to show Israel’s spiritual unfaithfulness to him. Thus there is both a physical side and a spiritual side to adultery. The thesis of this paper will basically deal with the physical side of adultery, i.e., actual sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.

This paper will also deal with fornication. The definition of the word "fornication" as it is used in modern English has stayed very close to the biblical definition. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary gives the following definition for "fornication":

"human sexual intercourse other than between a man and his wife: sexual intercourse between a spouse and an unmarried person: sexual intercourse between unmarried people."

Thus the definitions of "fornication" and "adultery" do overlap to some extent. The definition of fornication will also be developed in this paper.

This paper is in two parts with extensive appendixes. Part One deals with adultery and Part Two deals with fornication. In each part, the subject - adultery or fornication, has been developed in the order of biblical administrations. Thus adultery is considered first in the Patriarchal Administration, then in the Law Administration, followed by the Christ, Grace, and Appearing Administrations. Fornication is dealt with in the same manner.

Adultery

Every time the issue of adultery comes up in the Patriarchal Administration it is considered wrong and a sin. In Genesis 35:22, Reuben, Jacob’s oldest son, had intercourse with Jacob’s concubine.

Genesis 35:22

And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine: and Israel heard it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve.

There is nothing in the immediate context to indicate that Reuben was in any way punished for his adultery. But years later, on his deathbed, it was that event in Reuben’s life that Jacob remembered and spoke specifically about.

Genesis 49:3-4

Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power:

Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed; thou defiled thou it: he went up to my couch.

Reuben’s adultery was wrong. Reuben’s action "defiled" his father’s bed. The word "because" in the phrase, "Thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed..." points to a cause and effect relationship. Reuben’s adultery somehow caused him not to excel. So Reuben defiled his father’s bed, and he would not excel because of his action. The incident of Reuben is thus similar to that of David. Nathan used the word "because" when he spoke to David:

II Samuel 12:10

Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and has taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

The "because" in this verse again points to a cause-and-effect relationship. David’s treating God with contempt and "taking the wife of Uriah to be thy wife" was a cause, and the effect was "the sword shall never depart from thine house."

The book of Job, which is another record during the Patriarchal Administration, also mentions adultery:

Job 24:15

The eyes also of the adulterer waiteth for the twilight, saying, No eye shall see me: and disguiseth his face.

The context of this verse is people who do evil, and includes "those that rebel against the light" (verse 13), "the murderer" (verse 14), and burglars (verse 16). Adultery is placed in the same context with murderers and burglars. And the verse itself says that the adulterer tries to hide his action, clearly showing the evil nature of adultery. Job mentions more about adultery in chapter 31.

Job 31:9-12

If mine heart have been deceived by a woman, or if I have laid wait at my neighbor’s door;

Then let my wife grind unto another, and let others bow down upon her.

For this is an heinous crime; yea, it is an iniquity to be punished by the judges.

For it is a fire that consumeth to destruction, and would root out all mine increase.

Job’s attitude toward adultery is clearly stated. It is a "heinous crime" and an "iniquity to be punished by the judges."

There are three other incidents in the Patriarchal Administration from which to learn about adultery. Abraham and Isaac both tried to pass off their wives as their sisters. Abraham did it twice, and Isaac once. In all three cases, the pagan kings who took their wives knew that adultery was wrong, and returned the wives untouched when they found out that the women were already married. These three accounts are covered in detail in Appendix B.

There is one other record of adultery, actually an attempt at adultery, that must be considered. Joseph was one of the twelve sons of Jacob, and he was sold into slavery and taken to Egypt when he was still a teenager. Joseph was purchased by Potiphar, an "officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard" (Genesis 39:1). After a time Joseph had risen in position until he was the overseer of Potiphar’s house. At that time, Potiphar’s wife desired Joseph and wanted to have sexual intercourse with him. She was bold and up front with her desire, and said to Joseph, "Lie with me" (Genesis 39:7). Joseph refused. He called the intended adultery "great wickedness" and a "sin against God." Joseph, like Job, understood the nature of adultery. It is a great wickedness and a sin against God.

The information on adultery that can be gleaned from the Patriarchal Administration is clear. Adultery was wrong. It defiled, it made one guilty (Appendix B), it was great wickedness, a heinous crime, an iniquity to be punished by the judges, and a sin against God. There is nothing in the Word of God to indicate that adultery was in any way acceptable before God in the Patriarchal Administration.

After the Patriarchal Administration came the Law Administration. As in the Patriarchal Administration, there is nothing in the Law Administration to indicate that adultery was in any way acceptable behavior. The Mosaic Law forbids adultery. The seventh commandment is: "Thou shalt not commit adultery". That the usage of "adultery" in the seventh commandment is physical, i.e., a man with a woman, was made clear by Jesus Christ when he quoted the seventh commandment as is recorded in Matthew:

Matthew 5:27-28

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

It is obvious from Jesus Christ’s usage of the seventh commandment that he knew it referred to illicit sexual relations between men and women. A study of Old Testament scriptures shows that for a man, married or unmarried, to have sexual intercourse with a woman who was either betrothed or married was a capital crime, carrying the death penalty.

Leviticus 20:10

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Deuteronomy 22:22-27

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die:

But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

There was one exception to the law as recorded above, and that was when a man had intercourse with a betrothed woman who was also a slave. However, even then, there were consequences for their having had intercourse, and the act is called a "sin."

Leviticus 19:20-22

And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondsmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.

And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

In contrast to these clear verses, there is not one verse or record showing that adultery was acceptable to God in the Law Administration.

A number of clear verses during the Christ Administration, which followed the Law Administration, show beyond a shadow of a doubt that adultery was a sin. Jesus Christ clearly addressed the issue on several occasions. He quoted the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," on two different occasions. One was during his teaching from a mountain in Galilee during the summer of 27 A.D. (which has been quoted earlier).

Matthew 5:27-28

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Jesus quoted the seventh commandment a second time while he was in Perea, just prior to his trip to Jerusalem when he was crucified and slain. At that time, a rich young ruler came to Jesus and asked him what he should do to have eternal life.

Matthew 19:16-18

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.

It is clear from these two separate records in Matthew that Jesus Christ knew and taught that adultery was wrong.

John, chapter 8 is the record of the scribes and Pharisees who brought a woman to Christ "taken in adultery, in the very act."

John 8:4-6

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

The scribes and Pharisees said to Jesus, "Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" (verse 5). They said this to Jesus so they would have something to use as an accusation against him (verse 6). Moses did say that a woman caught in adultery should be killed.

Deuteronomy 22:22

If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Nevertheless, at that time, the Romans had made it illegal for the Judeans to put any person to death. This is why the Pharisees had to take Jesus Christ to the Roman authorities when they wanted him killed.

John 18:31

Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.

The trap of the Pharisees who brought the adulterous woman to Jesus Christ was very clever. If Jesus had said to stone the woman, the Pharisees would have seen to it that he was arrested for breaking Roman law. If, on the other hand, Jesus had said, "Well, Moses said to stone her but we have to obey Roman law," the Pharisees would have accused him of placing Roman law above God’s justice and discredited him (Remember, they brought the woman to Jesus, not for justice but so they could find something of which to accuse Jesus.) When Jesus gave his answer about casting the first stone, all the accusers left the scene. Jesus then asked the woman, "Where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?" According to Mosaic law, there was to be a trial and witnesses who would testify to a person’s guilt. If the person were found guilty, the witnesses were to cast the first stones at the guilty party (Deuteronomy 17:4-7). When Jesus stood up, there was no one there to be a witness and no one to fulfill the Mosaic law by casting the first stone. So Jesus said to the woman, "Go, and sin no more."

By calling the woman’s adultery "sin", Jesus clearly stated what adultery is - a sin. Furthermore, Jesus told the woman not to commit adultery again.

It is thus clear that adultery was a sin in the Christ Administration. Christ quoted the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" in his teaching from a mountain in Galilee. He quoted it again to the rich young ruler who asked him what to do to receive eternal life. He called the adultery of the woman mentioned in John, chapter 8 a "sin" and he gave illicit sexual relations as the only valid reason for divorce. In contrast to these records, there is not a scripture in the gospels that indicates that adultery was not a sin or that it was to be taken lightly.

This paper has dealt with adultery in the Patriarchal, Law and Christ Administrations, and it has shown that adultery was considered wrong and a sin in all of them. For adultery to be acceptable to God in the Grace Administration would be a change, and God would have to say it is acceptable. In fact, the opposite is the case. In the Grace Administration, God continues to call adultery a sin.

From Acts to Revelation, the words "adultery," "adulterer," and "adulteress" are only used fourteen times in the King James Version: Romans 2:22 (twice); Romans 7:3 (twice); Romans 13:9; I Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19; Hebrews 13:4; James 2:11 (twice); James 4:4 (twice); II Peter 2:14; and Revelation 2:22. Only the first seven of these uses are in the church epistles. Each of the fourteen occurrences will be examined.

1 and 2

Romans 2:22

Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?

The context of Romans 2:22 is Judeans who are "instructed out of the law" (verse 18). Thus the reference to them, saying, "A man should not commit adultery" comes right out of the ten commandments, i.e., "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The reference is simple and straightforward, and refers to the physical act of adultery. There is no reason to read spiritual adultery into this verse since the reference is obviously to the law and since idolatry (which would be spiritual adultery) is mentioned in the same verse.

3 and 4

Romans 7:3

So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

The context of Romans 7:3 is Judean law. This is clear from verse 1 "(for I speak to them that know the law)." Romans 7:3 is speaking about laws regarding divorce and remarriage and closely parallels what Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; and Luke 16:18, giving fornication as grounds for divorce.

5

Romans 13:9

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Romans 13:9 is a very clear verse of scripture, especially in light of immediate context. The quotation, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is from the ten commandments. It is noteworthy that the specific commandment was given in the ten commandments in the Law Administration, then quoted in the Christ Administration, and is now being quoted in the Grace Administration.

The context of Romans 13:9 is easy to understand. God’s will for the believer is made clear in verse 8, i.e., "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another." All the believer needs to do then is to find out from the scriptures how to love his neighbor as himself. The answer, at least in part, is in verses 9 and 10. And verse 9 makes it clear that "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" includes not committing adultery, not killing, not stealing, not bearing false witness, and not coveting. All those "Thou shalt not’s" are "briefly comprehended," i.e., "summed up," in the saying, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." It is clear from verses 8 and 9 that a person who loves someone will not steal from them, kill them, bear false witness about them, covet their belongings, or commit adultery with them. Furthermore verse 10 points out that "love is the fulfilling of the law" because it works no ill to his neighbor. The word "ill" is kakos in the Greek and is usually translated "evil." Love is the fulfilling of the law because the person who walks in the love of God will do what the Old Testament Law tried to do, i.e., get people to work no evil to their neighbors. Thus the person who walks in love will not steal, which is something the law tried to get people not to do. The person who walks in love will not commit adultery, which is something the law tried to get people not to do. Since the Old Testament law forbade adultery, in fact made it a capital crime, it cannot be "fulfilling the law" to commit adultery. So the person who walks in love, and thus fulfills the Old Testament law, must be a person who does not commit adultery.

6)

I Corinthians 6:9

Know ye not that the unrightous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

The question that needs to be answered in this verse is whether or not the adultery is physical or spiritual. The context of the verse is both spiritual and physical sins. "Fornicators" will come up later in the paper. "Idolaters," of course, is definitely in the spiritual category. "Effeminate" is the word used for the man who plays the female part in a homosexual relationship. "Abusers of themselves with mankind" refers to homosexuals and pederasts. Since many of the other terms refer to physical, sexual acts, and since idolatry is plainly listed, the weight of evidence is that "adultery" in I Corinthians 6:9 refers to the physical act.

7)

Galatians 5:19

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness.

The word "adultery" has been erroneously inserted here. It is not in the majority of the Greek texts, nor in the Syriac Pedangta text.

This ends the usages of "adultery" in the seven church epistles. The clear scripture is Romans 13:9 which leaves no doubt about God’s position on adultery - that it is not a loving thing to do, but is doing "evil" to ones neighbor.

8)

Hebrews 13:4

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

This verse is clear. Although marriage is honorable and the marriage bed "undefiled," i.e., unsoiled, unstained. Adulterers, who are breaking the marriage covenant, God will judge. Whoremongers, or fornicators, are covered in Part Two.

9 and 10)

James 2:11

For he that said, "Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

This is another time the seventh commandment is quoted in the scriptures. The context clarifies this verse.

James 2:10-12

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

For he that said, "Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

The overall point that is being made in this section of James is that it is not good enough to keep most of the law. Sin in even one area of a person’s life is still sin and makes him guilty under the Law. James 2:12 says, "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." The believer is to walk for God and not ignore sin in his life, thinking, "Well, after all, most of my walk is okay, so a couple sins won’t hurt." The reason adultery is even mentioned in James 2:11 is that it was an acknowledged example of sinful behavior, just as killing was. Adultery would not have been used in the verse if it was not a sin.

11 and 12)

James 4:4

Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

The words "adulterers and" should be omitted from this verse. They are not in the majority of the Greek texts or the Syriac Pedangta text. The word "adulteresses" has the spiritual meaning here, i.e., those who turn from God to serve worldly things. The context of this verse is those who serve worldly things rather than worshipping God. This is the first time that the word "adultery" has referred to idolatry or spiritual adultery.

13)

II Peter 2:14

Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children

The use of "adultery" in this verse is a good example of how closely tied physical adultery and spiritual adultery can be. The phrase "eyes full of adultery" forcefully reminds one of Christ’s words, "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already..." Thus the phrase carries the imagery of literal physical adultery. While the context of the verse will allow that, the context also demands that the ones involved are spiritual adulterers, i.e., idolaters. They have "forsaken the right way" and have "gone astray" and are "following the way of Balaam" (verse 15). Thus, in this verse, there is no need to separate the spiritual sine from the physical sin. The men involved are guilty of both.

14)

Revelation 2:22

Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

This verse illustrates the use of the physical sin to communicate a spiritual truth. "Adultery" carries the image of the physical act: "cast her into a bed" and "those that commit adultery with her." Nevertheless, in the context, the verse seems to be speaking of judgment for sin, not saying that there actually was a woman whom God would cast into bed. God uses one sin, adultery, to communicate truths about another sin, idolatry.

All fourteen uses of "adultery" in the New Testament have now been covered. Not one of them indicates, in any way, that adultery is acceptable to God. Quite the opposite is the case. Adultery is a sin. Furthermore, the sin of adultery is used to graphically portray the sin of idolatry.

Adultery has now been studied in the Patriarchal, Law, Christ, Grace, and Appearing Administrations. In not one single instance has it been shown not to be a sin. In stark contrast, there were many verses showing that adultery was a grave sin.

Adultery, in the Old Testament, involved a man, either married or unmarried and a woman who was either betrothed or married. The evidence from the Gospels (Cp. Matthew 5:32) and from the epistles (Cp. Romans 7:3) indicates that that definition holds true all the way through the Word of God. There are no examples of the term "adultery" that involve a man, married or unmarried, with a single woman. That means that, up to this point, all this paper has shown is that for a man to have sexual intercourse with another man’s wife is a sin. This next phase of the paper will deal with fornication and will show that in the Grace Administration it is a sin for a man to have sexual intercourse with any woman unless he is married to her.

 

 

 

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. 

Oh, makes sense because he actually IS a moderator.  I saw "his buddy" and thought he meant me.   If you guys are actually buddy-buddy, it's news to me.  Which you can be, but I'd be curious how chock knew when I didn't.  I think it's more like "they're buddies because I say they're buddies", which is sadly common out there. 

I do not understand. Was the answer "the Dave Allen Show" or something?

On 5/1/2025 at 4:20 PM, chockfull said:

Just visiting one more time to say I’m modifying my original premise.  Yes Christian posters are tolerated here.

But after  completely dishonest exchange with RAF who you can see his vomit all over this post including evaluating other posters like he has any real authority at all, I will just state I will never participate again on this site as long as RAF is a mod.

The only other mod is his buddy who protects him.  
 

RAF also sent a personal F off message complete with how he feels privately and I’m not permitted to post it here so his true colors remain hidden.

Sorry to all still in the Way cult sorry to those who could still be helped sorry to all other posters.  
 

I am way past my dealings with cults to accept an unlevel playing field for discussion so I’m leaving.

Yes RAF chased off more than one person from this site which should objectively end his mod run but it doesn’t.

so add 1 to your body count while you take your Pulitzer and shove it up ur where sun doesn’t shine.

chockfull isn't one of my favorite people, and we haven't seen eye to eye on some subjects, but I'm sorry to see him go regardless.   But that's up to chock, not me.    I do disagree on a few things. 

1- It's obvious there's at least 3 active moderators here.  chock would be off by 1 even if he was correct. 

2- Raf and I have been friends since high school.  Raf would never have heard of twi without me. (Sorry, dude.)  We have been friends, on and off, over the decades.  I'm confident I'm who he meant as "his buddy." I've posted and pm'ed people- like Raf and chock- with my opinions.   To say I "protect" Raf is an exaggeration. I think it's more accurate to say that we hold each other to a higher standard, since we know each other and don't tolerate so much bs like we would most posters.  I'm a more stringent critic of him, and Raf's well aware of it.  If one of us crosses a line, the other is most likely to be the one to call him on it.   But at the same time, we're rather PRECISE in our criticism, in how far is too far and how far is almost too far.  (Other people tend to get more leeway there.)  

3- chockfull and Raf had it out privately. I don't feel it's appropriate to get into their private quarrels. 

4- If I really thought there was an unlevel playing field, I would have taken off.  I still reserve the right to do so if it happens. 

5- I know of people who got obnoxious and stormed off. Chased off by Raf?  At best, an exaggeration.  

"Several people chose to leave after the site rules were fairly enforced with clear explanations. One of those people (not chockfull) chose to libel me on multiple platforms because I refused to let him use this site to libel and slander other people who aren't even participants here."

 

IIRC, that was the first person (not chocfull, the other person) who left and gave a lot of static of late.  (There have always been a few people- hardcore for vpw or for some pet cause- that left in a huff and vented about the GSC.)  Nobody knows this, but.... Not sure the best way to handle that person, I went to a different messageboard (completely unrelated) where I knew a moderator who was the same age as that person.  I outlined the situation (without specifics on the board and the group, so, anonymously) and asked for advice on how to address the situation.  I pointed out that the solution didn't seem to suggest itself from this end- the group and so on- so I was looking for some insight from someone of his generation.  He gave me some general advice I thought sounded sensible and possibly useful.  I thanked him and came back here. That person had already left here in high dudgeon.  Oh, well. I did try.  I don't think there were any easy answers there. 

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.   

2 hours ago, JoyfulSoul said:

I already said my old "church" had an entire "service" with four or five of them talking about their out of body experiences.  NDEs; visitations; caught up; seeing angels, on and on and on...  OK with the utterance manifestations at the Way but I don't talk about everything with every Christian group I come across.

Other than that, things are just a bit tender around here for me.  I prefer to just lurk awhile.  Makes me think of cats but...I'm really not here to offend 

A) So far, 124 posts' worth of lurking. Most people wouldn't call it "lurking" when they're posting that much.  If you really have been here for 6 months and only recently started posting, then you WERE lurking. 

 

B) That's open to disagreement.  I suspect yours would be the minority opinion here. 

9 hours ago, JoyfulSoul said:

See, now this is interesting.  I was never told the backstory.  I was really disappointed in '93 because my young nephew joined me at the Rock that year.  Everyone knows what it's like trying to communicate your faith or the reasons for your faith.  Well, the Rock was nothing like I told him it was.  It just wasn't worth it.  Now I know why.

If you'd have asked, I would have mentioned it sooner.  Questions are welcome here.  Either you'll get an answer, or possibly some links to whole discussions of the answer.  Or the names of several threads with whole discussions.  

9 hours ago, JoyfulSoul said:

Just trying to understand how poking fun at the logical conclusions of atheism is a worse offense that calling some Christian groups preposterous, pretentious and extreme prophetic phoniness.

Maybe you can guide me in this nuance?

That's easy.  Neither is considered acceptable- at least in this forum, there's a smidge of leeway in some specific fora- but the person who started escalated everything.  Had your response been to someone's comment, I would have reminded the other person to behave.  None of these posts are secret, so it's sensible that anyone I don't remind by name can still be reminded when they see it brought up.  

Oh, "poking fun."   It that like "the boys having a little fun" when they hit or insulted "the darkies"  some time ago in the deep South?   That wasn't meant to be offensive, either, but it sure as heck was.   If you think someone has "logical conclusions" in their doctrine, feel free to post about it in the appropriate forum. There's an entire forum that's perfect for that one.   In this one, unless the doctrine is "vpw didn't rape anyone, didn't plagiarize, wasn't an alcoholic and didn't teach lcm to be twofold the child of hades that vpw was", then it's off-topic.  

So, obviously, everyone- mentioned or not- should remember that, and back off on doctrines, beliefs, coda, etc in this forum.  

Oh, um, "LEADER OF THE PACK"?  

20 hours ago, GeorgeStGeorge said:

"Benny Hill"?

George

"Yes, it's the Benny Hill Show!"  

Your turn.

 

7 hours ago, Charity said:

The Fruit of the Spirit

Quotes from article above:

"In contrast to walking by the flesh, we walk by the spirit, which includes walking by the written revelation of God’s Word and operating the nine manifestations of the gift of holy spirit we received when we were born again."

"When we walk by the spirit by operating these nine manifestations, we will produce the fruit of the spirit."

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. 

7 hours ago, JoyfulSoul said:

I'm just going to tell you my opinion.  Of course you can disagree.

Respectfully, you're very certain about things you know nothing about.   But, I' m not here to convince anyone of anything, either.

Keep in mind that you may hold any opinion you wish, but not all of them can be posted here. Inflammatory posts and personal attacks are not permitted.   So, if your opinion is, say, that Christian dentists have no souls, you can keep that but you can't post it here because it's an attack on the Christian dentists.   Ignoring simple warnings, BTW, doesn't mean you get to just do whatever, either. It just means you decided to make more work for the Moderation staff, since you decide you won't control yourself, so they have to do it for you. 

 

7 hours ago, waysider said:

I'm fuzzy on the specifics. We discussed this in detail here 10 or 12 years ago. Most of this sort of thing came from Stiles or Leonard or maybe both. The definitions VPW used in the Advanced Class were lifted almost word-for-word from one of them. I think it may have been Stiles. Anyhow, it's all archived here somewhere. I'm not personally very skilled at locating old discussions. But, yeah, it's all here if you're motivated enough to look for it. At the moment, I'm more motivated to catch another episode of Heavenly Ever After on Netflix.

 

The definitions of "the manifestations" -the 1.0 versions vpw taught in "his" class on Receiving the Holy Spirit Today,- those came straight from Leonard.  The later versions added lots of multisyllabic words, all to obscure the source, none of them of any use. 
"The manifestation of <name>  is your operation of the God-given ability where with, you may receive from God, by His revealing unto you..."  That got slapped at the beginning of all of them, and it didn't improve the old definitions. If he was making "improvements," there were things he could have done.   According to Leonard, "Word of Knowledge" is "certain truths or facts about which it is impossible for you to know by your 5 senses."   vpw kept that part. But it's needlessly exclusive. If you COULD know something but simply DON'T, God Almighty isn't BLOCKED from revealing it.  It's such an obvious mistake that cg fixed that in his Advanced class, rendering it "certain truths or facts unknown to you by the 5 senses."  Now, THAT works. It makes sense, and it technically accurate.   (Sadly, he kept on making changes, and some of them were NOT improvements.)  I remember that one because I took CG's Adv class. I had the definitions to study beforehand. I was ready to ask about that particular definition- only to discover cg had already fixed it. 

I'm not sure about "fruit of the spirit" there. If I were to offer a GUESS, I'd recommend someone check Bullinger, in HtEtB and/or the Companion Bible. 

19 hours ago, oldiesman said:

This opens up a whole lot of other questions for me like, does God work with unbelievers as well.      Maybe the whole rap of "the fruit of the spirit comes from the manifestations" is bogus.       QUESTION for the group:    did VPW make that up or did he copy it from elsewhere... Stiles, Leonard, or somebody else?

I'm not sure. What I know is that it was neither taken from the Bible, nor does it agree with the Bible, and that's really the important thing to take away from that. 

9 hours ago, JoyfulSoul said:

As I tell my sister, I am my favorite subject.   So OK, the Rock in 87 and 88.   Highlights of my Christian experience.   

Went into the Army.   Met up with a guy trying to establish The Way in Germany but nothing came of it.

Got out in 93 and joined a twig.  Went to the Rock and this time it was awful.  Grounds weren't immaculate as they used to be.  The love, joy and family were gone.  I found LCMs preaching to be caustic and controlling.  It was later that fall I had that demonic episode I wrote about.  Eventually I split with my twig leader and  The Way.

In my experience, The Way changed between '88 and '93.   I know it is different for everybody, many thought it was over before I took PFAL.

A   little extra, would Christianity ever be the same again?   The Way was gone, was that glorious experience of Christianity gone, too?

Sometime around 96 or 97 the providential hand of God (just humor me, OK?) brought me to Morningstar Fellowship in Charlotte, NC.   Truly, it was a 'God thing' (read: psychotic event).  My walk with Christ (in my imagination) opened up new chapters and new vistas and even though the experience of love in Christian family (no thanks to VP, I'm sure)  was never the same, interaction with other worlds became even better- like...way better (don't bogart that bong) ...

Hard getting away from my favorite subject but you did ask.

 

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.)

23 hours ago, JoyfulSoul said:

There was already a whole thread about me.  Without the hand of God on human history I'm just trying to give some atheists some happiness before the nuclear winter.

The GSC is not a "Christians only" or a "Christian=specific" forum. Everyone is welcome to post, regardless of position, beliefs, and where they are in their life.  

That having been said, not everything is welcome to be posted.   It's not acceptable to dump insults on posters just because they're Christians, and it's not acceptable to dump insults on posters just because they're NOT Christians.  So, no slams just because people are atheists or agnostics (which doesn't mean everyone else is free game for insults.)  You have choices.  Either refrain from posts like that, or just admit you can't control yourself and go elsewhere to post. You can always make your own message board and post whatever you'd like on it.   The other possibility is to disregard the GSC rules and common manners and lay into people without restriction.  Of course, that means that the Moderators are going to have to take action.  Those who can't control themselves will require others adding control to them.  That's true just about everywhere.   Naturally, you can ignore my post or make fun of it, but a word to the wise is sufficient. 

BTW,

the GSC is LOADED with a variety of discussions of everything I brought up, and many things I did not.  The archives have many threads, the active "About the Way" has some, and even Doctrinal has some.  

"Perhaps. However.... in the meantime... in between time, ain't we got fun?"  (Emo Phillips.)

8 hours ago, JoyfulSoul said:

A couple moments before work.

When the prosecutor lays out the charges that's when the trial begins.  Until then, all you've heard are charges.

Sometimes atheists are like people describing a bong.  Whose is it?  Where'd you get it?  What color is it?  What's it made out of?

Idk, idk, idk.  I just love hitting the bong.  I might like to learn some of that but the color of the bong doesn't change my experience if it.  Atheists are extremely without joy, IMO.   It's cool to talk about the extremities.  Just, while you're doing that, would you pass me that bong?

 

It's been decades, and people defending vpw can still spring a few surprises.  

You're DECADES LATE to the discussion.   The trial began. The prosecutors laid out the charges. The witnesses were called forth.  The defense called the women liars and insinuated they were sluts and whores.  All sorts of defenses were offered of him.  By all BIBLICAL standards, and by enough to secure a conviction in a US court of law, vpw was found guilty of molestation, rape, and all sorts of things.   We've slowly assembled his biography, piece by piece, from vpw himself, from twi sources, from eyewitnesses (interviewed by a man who idolized vpw).    

Court was adjourned,  everyone went home.  The seasons changed. Years passed. 

Then he arrives and announces that the trial hasn't even begun.  No, you missed EVERYTHING. 

5 hours ago, Raf said:

I think he was trying to say we can't prove Wierwille was an atheist.

He's right.

I clearly called it a suspicion and asked whether others think it fits the facts.

 

I think he was letting me know with who/what I was trying to reason. Knowing that is important, and adds important context to the discussion. 

13 hours ago, Raf said:

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. 

I've been going over his entire life story, as much as we have. twi told quite a bit, and vpw LOVED to talk about himself. so there's little lack of some things, if only from his perspective.   When looking at the whole picture, I realized, relatively recently, that it makes a consistent picture.  His childhood was one of irreverence with a lack of piety or even dedication.   His adolescence was even moreso. His neighbors considered him a bully, a showoff, and a braggart.  A number of them remember him riding his motorcycle around, pulling stunts, trying to get notice and adulation.  We know that much because a man who virtually worships vpw, a man who said he was "overgifted", and that "when he walked, the earth shook", and so on, that man went around and questioned the neighbors.  The only thing he ever did that even suggested ministry was him making a comment to a traveling preacher, and vpw himself made it sound like he was just 'fibbing' when he said it.

Before he made the decision to begin ministry study, he himself told the Corps, many times, that he had considered business, music, and ministry, but eventually decided on ministry.   twi's own accounts, from vpw's mouth, mention that his decision was met with disbelief. His own father said that he hadn't even learned to work hard on the farm, and suggested ministry was harder.  His neighbors were in disbelief as well.  (Same source as before.) 

We know that his areas of study were the lightest he could find. No "history" or "languages". His academic focus was  "homiletics", or "how to write and deliver a sermon." We also know that he cut corners, reusing his Master's Thesis for his Doctorate Thesis, a big no-no. We suspect he plagiarized a lot, but we can't prove much of that without his records or people who caught him doing it in school.   we do know that he worked as an editor and proofreader for a magazine where preachers wrote articles. That provides the opportunity to plagiarize and not get caught- but isn't proof he did.  We know his Doctorate was acquired at a degree mill, and the place was unaccredited.  In the words of Al Franken, "They have as much authority to issue a Doctorate as Schlotski's Deli!"  

vpw himself spoke a lot about his first year or so of pastoring. He said he considered giving up twice early on, once per year, for the first two years. He also complained that giving weekly sermons at his first posting made him actually go to the Bible each week and write a sermon.  Never a word about the lives of the people, never a word about the responsibility, just complaints he had to do the work.   So far, I can't find any piety, any godly dedication. That's a man who's working for his paycheck, and trying to do the least amount of work for the most amount of paycheck. 

Then comes 1942.   Much later, vpw spread a claim that we've referred to as "the 1942 Promise." Supposedly, God Almighty told vpw that He (God Almighty) would teach him (victor paul wierwille)  God's Word like it hadn't been known since the 1st century, if he (vpw)  would teach it to others.  This was a lie, a fabrication, from when he first began to tell it (over a decade after it happened, he said nothing when it allegedly happened, not even to his own wife.  We've discussed this alleged promise in detail, and it's beyond any REASONABLE doubt that this was a lie, and not a very convincing one.

https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24980-concerning-the-failure-of-the-1942-promise/

 

Still can't find the piety.  A possible argument can be made after he spent time with Leonard and Stiles, in 1953.  His brother claimed that he seemed more clean-cut after that, but from his birth through his education and his first DECADE as a minister, no evidence he had even an AVERAGE level of piety for a parishioner, let alone a minister. But how "godly" was he even in 1953?  That was when he plagiarized Leonard's class and Stiles' book, and told everyone "I did this, this is my work."  So, I don't think a strong argument can be made that he got right with God.  That's decades in, and I still can't find godliness.  

In the 60s, he continued with incremental gains by hawking Leonard's class and Stiles' book, and modifying them by adding stuff from Bullinger.   At the end of the 60s, vpw went to impress the hippies and recruit them.  He seemed to appreciate the "free love" aspect of the hippies, and didn't like that the Christian ones weren't into that. He was unable to get anywhere with trying to suggest orgies were cool with God Almighty, and he seemed to drop the subject after it went over like a lead zeppelin.   

In the 70s, we have everything I mentioned in a previous post. It takes a lot of work to set up an excellent operation to molest people, and vpw set up a VERY successful one. We also have more direct eyewitness accounts more often, so at this point, we start to hear about his OTHER vices.  vpw was a chain-smoker and an alcoholic.  The man drank so much that when he visited a location for a weekend, a local was tasked with getting him bottleS (plural, for the weekend)  of Drambuie. We know he drank Drambuie.  How many of you know what your casual acquaintances drink?   I've known one poster here face to face for years. I think we could probably say of each other. Of the rest of the board, no idea. (Oh, one ex-poster who made his own moonshine, I'm fairly confident he drank that, but that's a very special case.)   He smoked cigars and Kool shorties.  Again, we know what brand and type of cigarette he smoked.  (IIRC, people were sent to get his smokes when he traveled, also, but I'm not 100% sure of that.)  

As for the 80s, that's when the man died of cancer.  The man drank for decades, weakening his liver. The man smoked cigars and cigarettes for decades, exposing himself to carcinogens for decades.  The man died of cancer.  Allegedly, the reason he got the cancer was that he was exposed to bright studio lights for 2 weeks while filming pfal decades before.   Some people still believe that.  Studio lights do NOT cause cancer.  On Broadway in NYC, on the West End in London, and so on, every night there are live shows with bright studio lights, not counting the matinee. Performers work looking into those lights for months or years at a time, some of them going directly to another show for months.  So far, no outcry that they're dropping like flies because they're all getting cancer from bright studio lights.  

 

So, which is more consistent with the man, when we look at ALL the man, and not just the image he portrayed?   Is it consistent that this man was indeed dedicated to God at some point, then gave up?   we can't find any time of significant piety.  Is it consistent that this man took ministry as a job, and worked as a performer, an actor, and faked it all, plagiarizing all the substance?   The evidence matches.   We can trace all of his successes to whom he plagiarized.  

The only thing left is the obvious objection "Well, if he was a fake all the time, what about when he manifested?"  All of that could be faked, and it looks like it was faked. If you want to get into "Is it possible or impossible to fake the manifestations",  then a new thread in Doctrinal would be where to have that discussion. 

 

3 hours ago, JoyfulSoul said:

I don't believe that for a second.  This is how I know you go beyond legitimate criticism to cynicism.   I'll listen to legitimate criticism, like saying he was a serial adulterer,  but he was a mixed bag at a minimum.

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.

I wasn't a follower of Dr Weirwille.   Ive studied the Bible myself and ran with a number of different churches through the years.  When I was disappointed in or kicked out of them I took my Bible and Jesus and kept on going.

"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.