WordWolf

Now, once again, let those of us who are able attempt to approach this thread's topic (which is not social gender relations) in a logical, and possibly Scriptural, fashion. Too bad some of us skipped over the initial post, eager to emotionally react and call it emotional and angry, rather than actually READ THE CONTENT. The rest of us saw that it contains the following: " All right. So, what does the Bible say on this subject of "good man"? Luke 6:45. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart. Proverbs 12:2 A good man will obtain favor from the LORD, But He will condemn a man who devises evil." For the sake of brevity, I didn't even make an attempt to be encyclopedic in listing the verses. (I know my posts can be long, so I try not to make them longer than I think is needed to address the subject.) Otherwise, other verses would have come up. Psalm 37:23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way. Matthew 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. Acts 11:24 For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. Romans 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. =============== So, we have a poster saying "Nobody is a good man." Now, if the poster claimed to disbelieve the Bible overall, the verses would be irrelevant-this person would consider them null and devoid of authority. But for a Bible believer, these verses make the matter plain- there is such thing as a "good man." The Bible also says there's such things as evil men: Proverbs 24:20 For there shall be no reward to the evil man; the candle of the wicked shall be put out. Proverbs 29:6 In the transgression of an evil man there is a snare: but the righteous doth sing and rejoice. (Also check out the words of Jesus Christ above, from the Gospels.) (I have no plans on being encyclopedic here- I think the point is made already.) ====================== Now, let me save some time. The response can either be an EMOTIONAL counter (defame me, change the subject) or a LOGICAL counter (try to use Scripture to disprove the issue, or if that's impossible, to cloud the issue.) The LOGICAL counter would be "But Jesus himself said there weren't good men!" -------------------------------------------------- Matthew 19:16-23. 16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17And 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. 18He 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, 19Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. Mark 10:17-23 17And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. 19Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. 22And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. 23And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! Luke 18: 18And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. 20Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. 21And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. 22Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! ======================================== I included the surrounding verses for a reason. It should be plain to all that these verses from different (SYNOPTIC) Gospels all address the exact same incident, from 3 slightly different "observers." But this is all one event, therefore, all one INSTANCE. Jesus didn't go around all the time saying "Only God is good-so never call anyone else 'good'.) If he did, he would have confused his followers worse than they already were when he said that "Luke 6:45. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart. (And said the same in the same instance in Matthew.) So, Jesus APPEARS to have said something in one place, and APPEARS to have said the opposite in another place. We have an APPARENT Bible contradiction. How do we resolve it? Well, if we skip the ones saying "discard the Bible" and "don't trust the Bible", we have an approach that says "the many clear verses clarify the few exceptions." Lots of places in the Bible-including from Jesus himself, say there's "good men." And one instance has Jesus saying "there's nobody good." Do we discard all the others and laud the exception? We can, but that's not intellectually honest. We can, however, ask ourselves "In light of knowing there ARE "good men", what did Jesus mean when he said "none are Good EXCEPT GOD?" Obviously, he was drawing a contrast between all men including himself, and God Almighty. In another place, he called his followers "evil", yet we don't go around calling them THAT! Matthew 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? Jesus was making a point about the goodness of God by using an obvious exaggeration and saying they were evil (BY COMPARISON TO GOD ALMIGHTY.) If you think Jesus really thought all his followers were evil people- including the 12 he himself chose- then I have no words to convince you otherwise. ====================================== So, to review, the Bible says some people ("men") are good ("good men"), and some people ("men") are evil ("evil men"). The Bible gives attributes of both "good men" and "evil men." We are to avoid "evil men" and not avoid "good men." We are also to be careful to determine which is which before making any statements.[/b] "Isaiah 5:20 20Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! " A) A man's speech will reveal what's in his heart. If he sees nothing wrong with hurting others with his words, with using his words to deceive, then that is what is in his heart, and that is an evil man with an evil heart. B) A man who devises evil is the opposite of a good man, and the LORD disapproves of him. By "devising" evil, we are not talking of someone who saw a near occasion of sin and committed it in the heat of the moment. We are speaking of a man who has sat down and worked out a plan that facilitated evil- that worked out how to do evil and get away with it. (Like, say, establshimg a network of people to approach young women, contriving excuses to being alone with them, having arranged to be alone with them in a place that's been furnished with a bed, having taught that physical affection is not sinful so they're less likely to protest, having liquor on hand to lower their inhibitions, and possibly drugging them if that doesn't work, then having a network of people to monitor her afterwards, and destroying her reputation or driving her to suicide if she seems likely to report it. That takes a lot of planning, and considerable shopping.) C) The opposite of a godly person and an upright person is someone who lies in wait to take advantage of others, and enjoys himself at their expense. D) Finally, there's good men, and there are men who lead people astray. When we see someone who teaches others that they can engage in sinful behavior, that sinning is ok "if they can handle it", and so on, we can see we're dealing with a man who is NOT good. The thing is, when we look at both what people say, and what Scripture says, the man's institutionalizing and premeditation of evil mean that the evil things he purposed, did and planned show that he WAS an evil man. There's plenty of men vpw's age who didn't view women as combination slave and concubine, and many still don't. Being a boss and hiring a secretary with the intent to pressure her to have sex is both a crime and reprehensible. Was vpw called of God to teach His Word? His own testimony was that he considered it as one of 3 possible careers- along with music and business, and chose ministry as his career path. When he was at it for A YEAR, he was ready to give up. When he was at it LATER, he AGAIN was ready to give up. He was WORKING his CAREER of ministry for over a year, having preached for over a year, and having completed his entire time in ministry education, WITHOUT BELIEVING THE BIBLE WAS GOD'S WORD. That's what he HIMSELF said. He didn't BELIEVE THE BIBLE WAS GOD'S WORD when he decided to go into ministry, or when he began his career. Small wonder he was so discouraged early on. He had spent years in preparation, and STILL was unprepared to believe God's Word or seek answers for people there. In fact, the decision to go into ministry was made while he was still maintaining his reputation as a bully and a show-off with his local community. He NEVER had respect for the authority of other men of God. He spoke well of them-to the point he could get something from them. Otherwise, he chafed against any sort of rules or authority. And once he got what he wanted from another man of God- like Stiles- he either stopped talking about them entirely (he deleted Stiles' name from the White Book) - or like Leonard- he dropped out of sight and hoped they'd never find out he'd stolen their material. This man found a book from Stiles- then he reproduced Stiles book, said it was his own, and charged people retail for Stiles' book. This man found a class from Leonard- then he reproduced Leonard's class, and said it was his own, and charged people retail for Leonard's class. Those are not good deeds, those are evil deeds. The man did not choose ministry for good, and did not use morally correct actions once he was a minister- nor did he use the Bible as a moral guide for his own actions. He also used his previous denomination to pay his salary and give him a title while he was building a ministry of his own on the side- he was running pfal classes for about a decade before he left- and that as all outside his denomination and never actually TO his congregation. If a RESPONSIBLE MARRIED MAN OF GOD suddenly finds himself hip-deep in young women, and some of them begin to show interest in having sex with him, he's supposed to put up some really strong boundaries rather than agree to sin. He's supposed to make sure he's not in private with them- Billy Graham's managed that for a lifetime- and satisfy himself and his wife in conjugal relations with his wife if he wants sex, and teach the group in general to NOT sin and have sex outside of marriage. That's all manageable-if one is determined to do what God says to do, and NOT do what God says NOT to do. Joseph didn't have sex with Potiphar's wife because God said it was wrong. When she cornered him, he ran off and refused to sin, no matter how easy it was, and no matter how young and hormone-driven he was. You can't convince me a RESPONSIBLE, GOOD man of God who's 50 years old and married will not be able to restrain his sex impulses IF HE WANTS TO. And, again, vpw didn't even find himself in this situation- he ORCHESTRATED this situation. ========================== So, in summation: 1) The Bible says there are "good men" and "evil men." 2) The Bible lists criteria to tell "good men" and to tell "evil men." 3) When the Bible's criteria are applied to vpw's life, it is plain that BY THE BIBLE'S STANDARD, vpw was an EVIL MAN, not just a man who did a few bad things in his life. 4) It is our RESPONSIBILITY to APPLY THE BIBLE'S STANDARD and IDENTIFY the GOOD MEN and IDENTIFY the EVIL MEN. Too bad we didn't know more and were unable to identify vpw as an EVIL MAN during his lifetime, but we are remiss in our duties if we can't clearly see him as an EVIL MAN now, or see that he is and stubbornly REFUSE TO APPLY THE BIBLE'S STANDARDS just because we don't want to hear that he wasn't an ok guy. God never promised us all our duties would be PLEASANT, but he expected us to be honest with HIM and EACH OTHER. So, if we DON'T WANT TO SAY that a certain EVIL MAN is EVIL, that's a non-issue. The truth is, the man is evil. vpw was an EVIL MAN who DEVISED EVIL THINGS, then PERFORMED EVIL THINGS on God's children, and fed his lusts on their bodies, on their money, and on their adulation. Anyone who finds that unpleasant to hear should change their heart to find the truth more pleasant rather than try to call the truth a lie, or to silence me from telling the truth, or to call me names for declaring the truth. Besides, if I had to choose between pleasing God by telling the truth, or pleasing every single person by hiding the truth.....

I've noticed a consistent pattern here. Let's see if anyone else has noticed this about this thread so far. 1) Most people have been posting mostly logically, with little emotion. 2) Most people have been taking contrary points of view with Johniam, disagreeing with them. 3) John has responded first by calling every dissenter as "angry" or said their posts have "anger", and said the entire thread was to "call him out". (Actually, the thread was to address one idea, which is both in its title and is the subject of a lengthy first post: What is a good man? What is an evil man? Where did vpw fall in this? 4) For someone complaining that emotion has been all over the posts of others, John's posts have been consistently the most emotional ones on the thread. 5) John's attempts to refute the subject of the thread and the other posters seem to center around either ignoring the Bible verses posted and saying that there is no such thing as a "good man", and CHANGING THE SUBJECT and GOING OFF-TOPIC into "how men have it tough" "how society has a double- standard about men", and so on. Either he doesn't realize this has nothing to do with what we were talking about (which speaks badly to his ability to discuss as an adult here) or he knows full well this is another subject and desperately wants us to get off the initial subject. Since that's been a consistent pattern whenever someone wanted to say "vpw was a great guy because I learned some good stuff", I suspect it's more of the latter than the former. (That, and the former is an axe John has to grind for the rest of his life, since it's seemed to pop up all over threads it had little or nothing to do with. =========================================================== First, we have someone who, apparently, didn't read the opening post, he seems to have skimmed it, because he skipped over the relevant Bible verses. (I'll get back to that.) Possibly that's because he was eager to slap the "angry" title and the "morally superior" title on a post. Small wonder nobody actually sees any EVIDENCE of anger in that post. I make a point of waiting a few days at times, or a few hours, to make sure my posts don't come out of emotion or impulse, but rather of logic. (Compare the timestamp of the opening post of this thread to the post it refuted. Compare all my responses with what they responded to, including this one.) Rather than address my points, John seemed quick to call me emotional, to change the subject, and INSULT me. ("angry post", "moral superiority", "stupid laundry list", "You have nothing but bad news", "vanity of vanities", "hubris". He claims I "misrepresent" and could do so to Jesus. On top of all of that, after spending all that time avoiding the initial post and changing the subject, he used the word "IRRELEVANT." Since his post actually was the "irrelevant" one (name-calling is not "relevant" to this thread), it's not without irony John can slap that label on me. It's an old thing, accusing someone of something the accuser is doing at the time. The Pharisees were said to have done it to Jesus himself. I'm sure it was an old tactic 2000 years ago. ===================== As for "misrepresenting", did I "misrepresent" anyone? Did I make any claim about vpw that is not common knowledge around here? I can provide my sources if anyone missed any of them. ============================================== I posted this: "I'll say it outright, and keep it simple. A) I believe there's overwhelming evidence that vpw was a fraud from the day he first stepped behind a pulpit (and before that.) B) I believe he was neither the first nor the last person to defraud the Body of Christ, and that's disgraceful no matter who does it. (Personally, I'd like some severe penalties to apply, but the laws of the US don't permit castration for rapists, slow deaths or dismemberments for child molesters, etc.) C) I believe there's overwhelming evidence that vpw found the best work from the best Christians he could find, then deceived us all by saying is was from him and God and due to some special covenant between them. D) I believe that in some cases, vpw taught error he copied from other Christians, and often taught some good or even great stuff he copied from other Christians. E) I believe it is harmful and false to carry around illusions that any of that was not true, and to elevate vpw past the level of "charlatan" and into the auspices of "prophet", "apostle", "man of God", "godly teacher", and so on. If I heard Charles Manson make an insightful comment about Scripture, I'd thank God for the insight, but I certainly would not seek to join Manson's group. F) I believe the truths of Scripture stood before vpw was born, and they abide since his death, and vpw has nothing to do with that. If Scripture contains Truth, then it is good to learn it and try to understand and apply it when possible. G) I believe that- no matter who teaches- it's the responsibility of the Bible student to evaluate what was said and try to identify and remove the errors inserted by the teacher. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (King James Version) 21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (New American Standard Bible) 21But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; So: A) Read Bible, try to apply it: Good thing. B) Use the Bible to evaluate everything vpw ever said: good thing. C) Elevate vpw because he sometimes spoke what the Bible said: bad thing. D) Believe vpw's groundless claims because he sometimes spoke what the Bible said: bad thing. E) Believe what the Bible says whether or not vpw agreed with it: good thing. I don't think I can make my positions any simpler than that." John responded with this: and then promptly changed the subject. My post was not BRIEF, but I never claimed it was. However, anyone can see it was both OUTRIGHT and STRAIGHTFORWARD, which is exactly what I claimed. Perhaps John's laboring under a misunderstanding about what the words "outright" or "straightforward" mean, or thinks that post length is somehow related to either (which it is not, and most of us know this.) ========================================================== Other posters, not reacting emotionally as John did, do not seem to be seeing the same posts John is seeing. They seem to see refutation and thoughtfulness, and not personal attacks nor anger. At least until John posted, possibly.

Revelation 21 (New American Standard Bible) 1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."

Technically, you did not- nor did I say you did. You seemed to infer it, and you claimed he was not an evil man, AND you claimed he was chosen-"called" of God to teach His Word. We're playing games with Sophistry here- you INSINUATED he was a good man. Unquestionably, those were evil deeds. I'd suspect (but would need more evidence to say anything with any measure of authority) those were evil men who performed evil deeds all the time. However, you did a disservice to a lot of people when you said "I think he was part of an entire generation of men who thought women existed for their pleasure." By saying this, you DID say that that entire generation AS A WHOLE thought like he did and acted like he did. I wasn't the only one who saw that. Congratulations. And those are non-issues to this discussion- nobody was trying to make this personal, AFAIK. (I think ExC is an exception-but under the specific circumstances, your comment WAS "personal" for her and she was entitled to respond accordingly. As I see it, everyone (all that I saw) didn't object to your beliefs about the Bible. They objected to your beliefs about vpw.

If we are to determine whether a particular man is a good man, an evil man, or anything else, it is important to first understand our terms. What is good? What is evil? What does it mean to be a "good man"? What does it mean to be an "evil man"? http://easydamus.com/alignment.html "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient." "Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose." =================================== A wise Grandfather from the Cherokee First-People's Nation, whose grandson came to him with anger at a schoolmate who had done him an injustice, said... "Let me tell you a story. I too, at times, have felt a great hate for those that have taken so much, with no sorrow for what they do. But hate wears you down, and does not hurt your enemy. It is like taking poison and wishing your enemy would die. I have struggled with these feelings many times." He continued, "It is as if there are two wolves inside me; one is good and does no harm. He lives in harmony with all around him and does not take offense when no offense was intended. He will only fight when it is right to do so, and in the right way." "But the other wolf, ah! He is full of anger. The littlest thing will set him into a fit of temper. He fights everyone, all the time, for no reason. He cannot think because his anger and hate are so great. It is hard to live with these two wolves inside me, for both of them try to dominate my spirit." The boy looked intently into his Grandfather's eyes and asked, "Which wolf wins Grandfather?" The Grandfather solemnly said "The one I feed." (author unknown) ====================================== If we considered these as guidelines, then it would be easy to evaluate people. We would evaluate their actions and see which direction they aligned. If we look at a man who debases or destroys men or women, who flies into rages when little things don't go his way, who debases or uses women for his "fun", who concerns himself little with THEIR dignities, only his own, who expects others to make personal sacrifies but never shows them how by sacrificing himself (like, say, telling some people to give up smoking while simultaneously being a heavy smoker, who is not troubled at the idea of hurting others or their deaths, only with whether or not they obeyed him, who shows some compassion at some times but seems devoid of it when people are hurt or suffering, then we know we're looking at a man whose attitude reflects evil and not good. That's really not that hard to determine, when you can look at enough of a man's life and see how he treats people both in public and when "the cameras are off." ===================================================== All right. Let's say you don't like that answer. Let's say that's not the answer you want to hear. So, you'll look for a pretext to invalidate that result. In this case, you're going to hide behind Scripture. "Those definitions are not from the Bible, so I'm going to say they don't count." All right. So, what does the Bible say on this subject of "good man"? Luke 6:45. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart. Proverbs 12:2 A good man will obtain favor from the LORD, But He will condemn a man who devises evil. Micah 7:2 The godly person has perished from the land, And there is no upright person among men. All of them lie in wait for bloodshed; Each of them hunts the other with a net. John 7: 12 There was much grumbling among the crowds concerning Him; some were saying, "He is a good man"; others were saying, "No, on the contrary, He leads the people astray." So, what does this tell us? A) A man's speech will reveal what's in his heart. If he sees nothing wrong with hurting others with his words, with using his words to deceive, then that is what is in his heart, and that is an evil man with an evil heart. B) A man who devises evil is the opposite of a good man, and the LORD disapproves of him. By "devising" evil, we are not talking of someone who saw a near occasion of sin and committed it in the heat of the moment. We are speaking of a man who has sat down and worked out a plan that facilitated evil- that worked out how to do evil and get away with it. (Like, say, establshimg a network of people to approach young women, contriving excuses to being alone with them, having arranged to be alone with them in a place that's been furnished with a bed, having taught that physical affection is not sinful so they're less likely to protest, having liquor on hand to lower their inhibitions, and possibly drugging them if that doesn't work, then having a network of people to monitor her afterwards, and destroying her reputation or driving her to suicide if she seems likely to report it. That takes a lot of planning, and considerable shopping.) C) The opposite of a godly person and an upright person is someone who lies in wait to take advantage of others, and enjoys himself at their expense. D) Finally, there's good men, and there are men who lead people astray. When we see someone who teaches others that they can engage in sinful behavior, that sinning is ok "if they can handle it", and so on, we can see we're dealing with a man who is NOT good. ========================================================= The thing is, when we look at both what people say, and what Scripture says, the man's institutionalizing and premeditation of evil mean that the evil things he purposed, did and planned show that he WAS an evil man. There's plenty of men vpw's age who didn't view women as combination slave and concubine, and many still don't. Being a boss and hiring a secretary with the intent to pressure her to have sex is both a crime and reprehensible. Was vpw called of God to teach His Word? His own testimony was that he considered it as one of 3 possible careers- along with music and business, and chose ministry as his career path. When he was at it for A YEAR, he was ready to give up. When he was at it LATER, he AGAIN was ready to give up. He was WORKING his CAREER of ministry for over a year, having preached for over a year, and having completed his entire time in ministry education, WITHOUT BELIEVING THE BIBLE WAS GOD'S WORD. That's what he HIMSELF said. He didn't BELIEVE THE BIBLE WAS GOD'S WORD when he decided to go into ministry, or when he began his career. Small wonder he was so discouraged early on. He had spent years in preparation, and STILL was unprepared to believe God's Word or seek answers for people there. In fact, the decision to go into ministry was made while he was still maintaining his reputation as a bully and a show-off with his local community. He NEVER had respect for the authority of other men of God. He spoke well of them-to the point he could get something from them. Otherwise, he chafed against any sort of rules or authority. And once he got what he wanted from another man of God- like Stiles- he either stopped talking about them entirely (he deleted Stiles' name from the White Book) - or like Leonard- he dropped out of sight and hoped they'd never find out he'd stolen their material. This man found a book from Stiles- then he reproduced Stiles book, said it was his own, and charged people retail for Stiles' book. This man found a class from Leonard- then he reproduced Leonard's class, and said it was his own, and charged people retail for Leonard's class. Those are not good deeds, those are evil deeds. The man did not choose ministry for good, and did not use morally correct actions once he was a minister- nor did he use the Bible as a moral guide for his own actions. He also used his previous denomination to pay his salary and give him a title while he was building a ministry of his own on the side- he was running pfal classes for about a decade before he left- and that as all outside his denomination and never actually TO his congregation. "Around age 50 his farm began to host many young women at a time. He's not supposed to notice?" Amazing how factually incorrect this view is! The man found out there was a ministry of young folks in an area where free sex and orgies were done- and rushed over there to meet the young folks. He SPECIFICALLY ASKED one of them DETAILS of ORGIES, and attempted to use HOLY SCRIPTURE to say that ORGIES were ok with God. (The same rap he laid on women since then-God's ok with sex outside marriage, etc.) He recruited the young folk and did his best to get them onto the ministry property ("his farm", remember, was MINISTRY PROPERTY. He signed it over to the ministry so he could avoid paying taxes while getting the full use of the property.) When the young women got there, he had already arranged for offices and "personal buses" with beds in them. Doesn't sound at all like the man you described. You described a man who woke up one morning, and found himself surrounded by sexually-generous hippychicks. We've seen, in detail, that vpw went out of his way to find and get sexually-generous hippychicks if at all possible, and set things up for maximum opportunities to try to have sex with any of them he could convince to do so. We've also heard from women who had zero interest in sex with him- he did his best to convince them to do so and drugged some when they refused. And, to answer your question-and carry it even FURTHER to make my point- if a RESPONSIBLE MARRIED MAN OF GOD suddenly finds himself hip-deep in young women, and some of them begin to show interest in having sex with him, he's supposed to put up some really strong boundaries rather than agree to sin. He's supposed to make sure he's not in private with them- Billy Graham's managed that for a lifetime- and satisfy himself and his wife in conjugal relations with his wife if he wants sex, and teach the group in general to NOT sin and have sex outside of marriage. That's all manageable-if one is determined to do what God says to do, and NOT do what God says NOT to do. Joseph didn't have sex with Potiphar's wife because God said it was wrong. When she cornered him, he ran off and refused to sin, no matter how easy it was, and no matter how young and hormone-driven he was. You can't convince me a RESPONSIBLE, GOOD man of God who's 50 years old and married will not be able to restrain his sex impulses IF HE WANTS TO. And, again, vpw didn't even find himself in this situation- he ORCHESTRATED this situation. He "DEVISED EVIL." And you're pretending he just woke up one day and found an entire sin-structure waiting. That's your privilege, but it's hardly in harmony with reality.

"Cash Cab" is correct!

"Let's go for the Video Bonus!" "Did you want to use your Mobile or your Street Shout-Out?" "We're stuck at a red light, so that triggers a Red Light Challenge!" And nobody's gotten it yet or gotten close enough to count it as correct.

Correct. Some classic Who. Your turn.

"You can't always get it When you really want it. You can't always get it at all. Just because there's space In your life it's a waste To spend your time why don't you wait for the call? (Just gotta get used to it) We all get it in the end. (Just gotta get used to it) We go down and we come up again. (Just gotta get used to it) You irritate me my friend. (This is no social crisis) This is you having fun." "You can't always get higher Just because you aspire. You could expire even knowing."

"Let's go for the Video Bonus!" "Did you want to use your Mobile or your Street Shout-Out?"

Better late than never! Karl makes the list....

New round. "Let's go for the Video Bonus!" Actually, that was something THEY said about their own show. Along with "When news breaks, we fix it."

"You can't always get it When you really want it. You can't always get it at all." "You can't always get higher Just because you aspire. You could expire even knowing."

Bravo!

Jeremiah 13:23 (NASB) "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil." Exactly what I meant by "deniability." Plus, his standard "post and run" strategy, rather than actually INTERACTING with the people and risking sounding like a peer and equal. (Or, in this case, an inferior, a chronic remedial student who never learns.) He can post and run, and congratulate himself on what he redefines as a "victory." There's fewer of them every year. Rather than being PEOPLE, they're seen more as COMMODITIES, as REVENUE SOURCES and, at best, CONSUMERS rather than someone to SERVE. After all, JESUS said those in authority will SERVE, but JAL and the vpw-trained twits all seek to BE served.

IF it was, it sure would have been nice to see that. Instead, we got a new form of Pharisee who coveted the chief seats, adulation, filthy lucre, luxuries (motorcycles, a plane, lots of tobacco and Drambuie....) and fulfilling his lusts (both his vices and his abuse of women.) He talked a good game, but spent a lot more time arranging for privileges for himself than not. God is not mocked- vpw will reap what he sowed. I agree. I think this was the most concise summary. (Supposing it means anything.)

"You can't always get it When you really want it. You can't always get it at all."

The Daily Show. Where more people get their news than probably should.

"I'll have what she's having!"

Since his response to you was almost the same, and revealed the name, I think it's pretty obvious he was saying "Close enough" and making it your turn.

Can't be a hoopy frood without your towel.

All right, that's the unaltered copy. Here's my analysis. ============================== "Dearest PFAL Grad," [We have our audience defined here- PFAL grads, the "initiated", the only people likely to fall for some nostalgic propaganda, the aging population, all in their 40s and older, since after that, the numbers of PFAL grads became miniscule.] "I just heard the news about the GreaseSpot forums closing down soon, and thought I'd send out one last missive from my heart to anyone who wants to receive it." [Translation: I was cheered to hear that my most visible critic might be silenced. In response, I figured that-before it closed-I'd post one last advertisement and try to get more customers. I COULD have demonstrated I'd finally, in the twilight of my years- grown up and changed, but instead I will demonstrate I'm making much the same mistakes now I made the rest of my life.] "It was 43 years ago last month (December), while I was a Lieutenant in the 82d Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg NC, that my college three-sport teammate told me that he had "some tapes" on the Bible. Having by then become fervent about knowing God, I said, "Cool, I'll drive to Ohio on my way home to Indiana for Christmas and we can listen to them." [Here's some nostalgia where I toss in a number to impress you with how long I've been doing this- as if the rest of you haven't been doing the same.] "When he opened the box of reel-to-reel discs on that Sunday morning in Cleveland, revealing 33 hours of tape, I said, "You said 'some tapes'!" And he said, "These are some tapes." And I said, "You're right; these are SOME TAPES! And when I get bored, I'm leaving for Indianapolis." Three days later I finished the PFAL class for the first time, and I was both stunned by how much error I had been taught about the Bible, and thrilled by the truth I heard in PFAL." [More nostalgia, to lull those who used the reel-to-reels and impress those who came later. Or, at least, that's the idea. Moreover, here we see that JAL STILL hasn't taken a cold, hard look at everything from the ground up. He's still stuck at "before PFAL I was taught error" and "PFAL is where the truth was." THE REST OF US know better, and have for many years, and have grown beyond it. JAL's stuck in his spiritual adolescence.] "I long ago realized that PFAL was an historically unparalleled presentation of the truth of God's Word, and I will forever be grateful that I was in the right place at the right time to partake of it. And it was the keys set forth in that class that have enabled me, with a lot of help from my friends, to grow in both biblical knowledge and expression so as to be able to now present it in an even more accurate and expansive way. Of course, that is as it should be." [Wow. JAL has had over 25 years to grow up. He has not. Where all the GSC regulars, past and present, have seen how PFAL was plagiarized from several sources concealed from the public, and advertised excessively to be from God instead of Leonard, Stiles, Bullinger, Kenyon.... JAL has not learned A THING in the DECADES since he left. I can't summarize his delusion any better than he did, so I'm leaving his words as-is.] "After helping to put together several such systematic courses of study in the last 24 years, I'm going to spearhead another, with a lot of help from my friends. Our goal is to film an accurate, entertaining, exciting, and effectual 24-hour foundational class, and we hope to do it about June 1. In case you are interested in obtaining a copy, my email address is jal@tltf.org." [JAL didn't learn anything about how systems like PFAL and TWI hurt people. So, he made another system that's gone on to hurt others. When he wore out his welcome there (1 system, not "several such systematic courses of study"- CES is STFI by another name, not an entirely new group), he left, and is ready to roll out ANOTHER system which will hurt others. " Our goal is to film an accurate, entertaining, exciting, and effectual 24-hour foundational class" How's THAT for a mid-life crisis? PFAL is a dim memory, and nobody new has been hurt by it- but JAL's ready to try to hurt some more and male the same vapid claims of, how did HE put it? "an historically unparalleled presentation of the truth of God's Word" [The man is trapped in his own personal hell- doomed to repeat the errors of the past over and over.] "You may know that in January, 2010, about 30 of us started The Living Truth Fellowship, and each month via email (and hard mail for those w/o email) we send out a 3-4 page written teaching in our FRUIT OF D'VINE publication. We also have more than 125 teaching videos on our YouTube channel (justtruthit) and our Vimeo channel. You can find both of those on our website (www.tltf.org)." [JAL's still good with coming up cutesy names for stuff. And he's getting to be an old hand at advertising his products- something the current mouldering relic of twi has given up on.] "I have a deep affinity for every PFAL grad, as I firmly believe that we share the unique privilege of hearing the Word of God as it not been heard since the first century. I am still committed to presenting the Word in the best way possible, so if my life and ministry can bless yours, great, just let me know." [Here comes the sales pitch. All of you are going to join him because you're all smart, privileged, wise, attractive people. JAL, in spite of amazing amounts of evidence, is still pushing the " hearing the Word of God as it not been heard since the first century." Either he doesn't know what the rest of us know- and is a delusional idiot- or he knows what we do- and is intentionally lying like vpw did in order to fool people- and he's looking at you while he's thinking "gullible." There is no middle ground here. Either he knows it's all a lie or he doesn't. Which is he- delusional fool, or lying con man? I'll leave that to your own conclusions.] "I love you. Onward and upward! John Lynn " [JAL's still doing the "you are all strangers to me, but I love you all" nonsense we all gave up LONG ago. And he's added the motto of the State of NY in an attempt to sound more original than the other splinters. JAL, aren't you getting a little too old to sell us on the Easter Beagle and the Great Pumpkin?]

Jeremiah 13:23 (NASB) "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil." Seems JALvis could not resist the turn of the cycles to resist posting one more advertisement. He posted it in the Shoutbox, possibly to increase his deniability. (Previous times, he send mail to people he knew would post it to the GSC, and included a note saying he was not trying to get it posted online but knew it would show up there somehow. Other times, he deleted his own copies-until he realized other copies were already in existence and the deletion of his own copy said a lot to the people who could no longer access it.) So, the new advertisement, with its own level of "deniability." Man can't just speak plainly to us if his own life depends on it. Here's what he posted, to be followed by my own thoughts. ========================================== Dearest PFAL Grad, I just heard the news about the GreaseSpot forums closing down soon, and thought I'd send out one last missive from my heart to anyone who wants to receive it. It was 43 years ago last month (December), while I was a Lieutenant in the 82d Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg NC, that my college three-sport teammate told me that he had "some tapes" on the Bible. Having by then become fervent about knowing God, I said, "Cool, I'll drive to Ohio on my way home to Indiana for Christmas and we can listen to them." When he opened the box of reel-to-reel discs on that Sunday morning in Cleveland, revealing 33 hours of tape, I said, "You said 'some tapes'!" And he said, "These are some tapes." And I said, "You're right; these are SOME TAPES! And when I get bored, I'm leaving for Indianapolis." Three days later I finished the PFAL class for the first time, and I was both stunned by how much error I had been taught about the Bible, and thrilled by the truth I heard in PFAL. I long ago realized that PFAL was an historically unparalleled presentation of the truth of God's Word, and I will forever be grateful that I was in the right place at the right time to partake of it. And it was the keys set forth in that class that have enabled me, with a lot of help from my friends, to grow in both biblical knowledge and expression so as to be able to now present it in an even more accurate and expansive way. Of course, that is as it should be. After helping to put together several such systematic courses of study in the last 24 years, I'm going to spearhead another, with a lot of help from my friends. Our goal is to film an accurate, entertaining, exciting, and effectual 24-hour foundational class, and we hope to do it about June 1. In case you are interested in obtaining a copy, my email address is jal@tltf.org.a You may know that in January, 2010, about 30 of us started The Living Truth Fellowship, and each month via email (and hard mail for those w/o email) we send out a 3-4 page written teaching in our FRUIT OF D'VINE publication. We also have more than 125 teaching videos on our YouTube channel (justtruthit) and our Vimeo channel. You can find both of those on our website (www.tltf.org). I have a deep affinity for every PFAL grad, as I firmly believe that we share the unique privilege of hearing the Word of God as it not been heard since the first century. I am still committed to presenting the Word in the best way possible, so if my life and ministry can bless yours, great, just let me know. I love you. Onward and upward! John Lynn

That which is "hidden" is "occulted." "Occult" knowledge is secret, hidden knowledge only trusted to the initiated. In that respect, twi was an "occult" organization. The concept of "witchcraft" is that of performing something to affect the movement of reality- whether that is for good, evil, or neither. It is attempting to bend the universe in conformity to your will. (If you don't believe me, Crowley said the same thing, and he certainly was an occultist.) (Anyone who objects to the ancient word "witchcraft" because it is too close to their 20th century or 21st century practices should use a name for those practices that didn't already have a specific meaning or set of meanings that was already in use long before they came along.) =========================== twi attempted to control others- that was "witchcraft." twi still claims to have "secret" knowledge unknown even to other Christians for 2000 years- "occult". twi claims to use "supernatural" means- the "LAW of Believing", prayer- to alter reality- "witchcraft." Whether or not twi actually tapped into some supernatural evil to accomplish their tasks is a separate question entirely.

"I do whatever I want. When asked why, I come up with an excuse that makes it sound proper. When problems happen, someone else is responsible." That's pretty much the vpw method-minus the specifics of using Scripture and plagiarism to give out that himself was some great one. Any HEALTHY leadership system begins with accountability at the top. Of course, vpw never BOTHERED to go through any training of any kind, and just A$$UMED that he was running things right, even when his orders resulted in most crude flailings that hurt people. Naturally, he always put the blame on everyone else. "Oh, my orders were fine, it was the people under me who messed up." Same nonsense Stalin apparently spouted. He taught "follow what I say without questioning it." When people didn't do that, he kicked them out and smeared their reputations. When people DID do that, we had what was said above- "the banality of evil", where evil orders are given, then carried out by people who don't MEAN evil, but are cogs in an evil machine that is doing evil. Technically, the machine wasn't evil in and of itself, but the means and the goals were evil, therefore I call it all "evil."