WordWolf

TECHNICALLY, no. You started the other thread, and this thread was started in direct response to your posting about vpw and whether he's a "victim" or not. Well, you've grossly oversimplified the situation, and cut out everything that didn't support your position. You may as well say "Does every current German citizen bear responsibility for the Nazi regime? Better to peg it on a guy who died in 1945. Makes it easy for people to just walk away or sit at a computer." By your system, everyone except possibly yourself (who was innocent of twi?) was EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR TWI. Meanwhile, we have a man who defined an organization so as to provide him as much money as its structure was able to provide (immoral) , who broke the law to plagiarize the works of others (illegal) to provide him a marketable product, who put forth the works of others were all the result of conferences between him and God Almighty (immoral), who set out to try to find out how to incorporate "God approves of orgies" into his system when he thought some Christians were saying that (immoral), who sent others to set up groups then shoved their leaders out as soon as the groups were in place (immoral), who made all sorts of claims of a "leadership program" that allowed him to have people PAY to be in a program where they did the manual labor required on-grounds (immoral), who required the applicants TO that program to write autobiographies, then used those autobiographies to target some women to rape, or drug and rape (illegal and immoral), who set up an elaborate framework to cover his tracks so that almost nobody even SUSPECTED any of these things until the invention of the internet, and carefully cultivated an inner circle who were "insiders" to all this and were PARTICIPANTS and CO-CONSPIRATORS in this. This man set up a structure, and used large numbers of legitimate Christians with genuine desire to serve God and help others, and made them his SMOKESCREEN. Blame all of them EQUALLY with him? He set out to do evil. They set out to do good. He deceived them. They were deceived. Should they have looked closer? In many cases, yes. Is that equally bad as what he did? Do you blame the animal for falling in the trap? With 20/20 hindsight, it's EASY to see what MIGHT have been done, what MIGHT have worked. The few who found out and spoke up were VILIFIED and VILLAINIZED so no one would believe them. In fact, one of them was kept under ARMED GUARD. Equally to blame with the man who set up the framework, and those who maintained it with him and PARTICIPATED in it? In some cases, it's taken decades to FIND OUT ALL THIS. Call me "simple-minded" all you wish. I say the rapist who set this up, and got others to assist him and join him in the rapes were MORE RESPONSIBLE than the people who just tried to do their best to do the right thing.

I was making a good-faith attempt to address your questions. Looks like you had your mind made up long before starting the thread, and just wanted a thread to vent. Mind you, if you'd labelled it a thread where you just needed to vent, I would have been fine with that.

We can go by what he said- understanding that he may lie or speak the truth. He did speak to audiences in twi, and said he grew up considering ministry along with business and music. We know that he was a hell-raiser growing up. a FAN of vpw reported that. We know they were surprised he was considering ministry. By his own confession (TW:LiL), he said his own father thought he didn't have what it took to be a proper minister. By his own confession, he was only working as a minister for a year before he seriously considered quitting, since he wasn't seeing amazing results. (TW:LiL) By his own confession, he was a practicing minister for more than a year before he went to the Bible to prepare his teachings, and didn't believe the Bible was God's Word. (TW:LiL). Lacking any other source, it's not surprising that in LATER life, he habitually stole the work of others and claimed it was his- that's how he started as a minister! For those wondering, any competent junior high school, college and grad school teaches plagiarism is wrong- including the ones he went to. He knew it was wrong-he did it anyway. With all of that, he didn't state his motives. However, looking at the complete picture, there's a consistent picture of a man who wasn't chosen of God, but who looked at ministry as a CAREER, not a CALLING, a man who didn't do his own work, but used the work of others, who began as a minister and had no beliefs concerning the Bible.

Actually, he was talking about people NEVER rising beyond what they're taught. If you want to bring in the so-called "LAW" of believing, please bring in a new thread, or revive one of the many threads where it was already disproven beyond any REASONABLE doubt. Of course, the disproving displeased you, but your refusal to believe what's plain is NOT the problem of anyone talking sense. Trying to claim his "LAW" of believing works leaves one to explain its continual failures, like the hypochondriac who confesses great illness and is perfectly healthy, and the man who confesses he will die shortly, and continues to complain year after year. This is only a problem if one is committed to retaining silly doctrines that are easily-refuted.

Ignoring all the other times he said it, vpw put in black and white "No one rises beyond what he believes and no one believes beyond what he is taught." The meaning of that is plainly obvious to anyone who actually makes a reasonable attempt to understand it. It's simple English. If you believe something, it's because you were taught it. You don't get further than you're taught-because you don't go further than you believe, and that's dependent upon what you were taught. To the literate, intelligent person, all of this is unsupported. vpw said "no one rises beyond what he believes and no one believes beyond what he is taught" and that's all a matter of "where do you get that?" "Who says?" vpw put a verse reference right next to it, then changed the subject. Why? To the literate, intelligent person, the answer is obvious. vpw said that verse was supporting his claim. But he didn't print the verse. Why? In this instance- as in MANY instances- vpw pulled some statement out of his...nose, and claimed it was supported in Scripture, but since it wasn't, he changed the subject. Of course, someone who is fixated on trying to excuse vpw for everything wrong he did, including "claim he was saying the same thing as Scripture when he was making stuff up", ignoring what he said, and changing the subject's par for the course. The verse itself was about Christians who WERE dedicated to idols. vpw was limiting people's beliefs to only what they were taught-which was to HIS benefit, since he was the one teaching. Yet, someone expects us to believe that's nothing like what he actually said- they're rewriting what he said in an effort to get it to work. Do we sense some sort of snow job coming on? For the few who don't know the answer, the answer is "yes."

NOT the point. Read it again. Your assertion was that, specifically, a person who was hurt by VF should go to VF and address it in private. That has NOTHING to do with what the ACTUAL VERSE says. It's about addressing a brother THAT SINNED. Period. Nothing about "the hurting party". Luke 17:3 Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. Galatians 6:1 Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. This business of "it's about someone who hurt you" is what vpw referred to as "private interpretation." (Which itself was an example of what he called "private interpretation.")

"We are today what we are and where we are because of our believing. We will be tomorrow what and where our believing takes us. No one rises beyond what he believes and no one believes beyond what he is taught. I Corinthians 12:2." Of course, independent from what vpw said over and over again, there is NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS for this statement in EITHER form. I Corinthians 12:2 certainly doesn't say it. NIV You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. NASB You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led. KJV Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

Matthew 18:15 NASB If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. (With a notation that some late manuscripts add "against you".)

It really wouldn't take a lot of work to look up even the "top few" like DWBH and apologize. It really wouldn't take a lot of work to write up a webpage and apologize in general for having been a real lcm to people, and you wouldn't even have to name the names of the people you REMEMBER hurting. Even a minimal effort would say something- it would say you cared, at least a little. With NO effort, that says something else- that you don't care, not even a little. Often, silence is a considerable message all by itself.

If he was "in a prison", it was a gilded prison ENTIRELY OF HIS OWN MAKING. He had no qualms against deceiving whoever he had to, in order to make his dream real. He had no qualms against using people as merchandise, in order to fulfill his lusts. If he failed to match his own press, it's his own fault for billing HIMSELF as Superman and Green Lantern rolled into one. And carefully designed that way by him. Ok, I can see where people should have done a LOT better at THAT part. That he was a liar and deceiver is worth a little outrage. That he used people as things is worth a little outrage. When there were people who showed signs of standing up to him, vpw had them kicked out and their reputations savaged so no one would listen to them. (This was before the internet.) vpw KNEW he was conning people, and carefully selected WHO HE COULD CON. When there were people with big families in twi, generally he left them alone. He avoided raping and molesting women who already had big support networks of people who would believe him. A) I share zero blame in shaping him into anything- partly because he worked hard to shape himself. and partly because he was dead months before I ever heard of him. B) We were all deceived, but not all of us were deceived the same way and to the same degree. I do not say that even MOST of us "lapped it up" and I certainly don't know most of us "denigrated" outsiders, or offered financial support. I did neither. I thought we were better, but I wasn't above learning from other Christians in an attempt to reach a higher plateau. MANY people fell for it. MANY people were HAPPY to fall for it. SOME insist on falling for it to this day. I try not to pigeonhole EVERYONE or MOST based on that.

One thing you're discounting, Bol, is that a lot of us were perfectly sincere Christians who meant well all along, wanted to learn about God, and wanted to please God. We weren't particularly interested in climbing any ladders or lying to anyone. We were scammed into thinking it was ALL of God- or the parts we wouldn't have fallen for were HIDDEN from us (like all the "lockbox' stuff.) We didn't intent to be victim, deceiver, liar, ladder-climber, set snares, or uise claims to get anything from anyone else. Perhaps you don't see it, but nearly every poster here who ever joined twi of their own free will MEANT WELL at the time we joined. Oh, almost all of us have learned since that there was scams and traps, and many of us left over them, or were kicked out due to them, but until that happened, most of us made good-faith efforts to do the RIGHT thing, what we thought God wanted, not just what WE wanted.

Actually, you wouldn't agree, because you'd just seek another pretext to validate the conclusions you already made. "Lots of stuff I teach is not original" was buried hundreds of pages into a book that had a number of people claiming twi and vpw had special information re: God that others did not. You're continuing to ignore that people who tell the truth tell the same truth, but people who lie tell DIFFERENT lies to DIFFERENT people. So, when he was trying to appear humble, he claimed he wasn't original. When he was trying to put forth he was THE Authority, then he had a connection that was unique in all of 2000 years. If you have a connection unique in all of 2000 years, then you're claiming that you AND YOU ALONE have the special connection. This is not difficult to see unless one is determined to make it difficult. (None so blind...) As almost everyone else can easily see, the words "YOU" coupled with "AS IT HAS NOT BEEN KNOWN SINCE THE FIRST CENTURY" mean that it IS "ONLY YOU" for the last 2000 years. That obviously vpw wasn't the only person who knew things since the last 2000 years- and that some of it was the OPPOSITE of the first century church should make it obvious that the claim of the supposed promise of God was WRONG. Therefore, either: 1) vpw lied, or 2) God lied, or 3) Someone claimed to be God, lied to vpw, and he wasn't competent enough to tell he was getting information from a lying spirit. If vpw lied, I don't trust him. If vpw heard from a lying god, I don't want anything to do with his god, and I'd get a God who can't lie. If vpw was getting his information from lying spirits, I don't want his information either. I know, you can't see it's that simple. Despite your inability, it IS that simple.

If I had one handy, do you think I would have re-used a previous one?

I agree. Anyone who wants to take the turn, can begin posting quotes. (Preferably a lurker who hasn't been posting recently.)

Actually, for dishonesty at its lowest, I can't top taking the work of someone else, then turning around, claiming credit for it, the result of your life's work, and claim that God Almighty taught it to you, and ONLY you, for the past 2000 years.

Most of us should at least know 365.25 days in a year, since we all know we have to add a calendar day every 4 years.

All we know is "the item has ended."

Those of you who may have considered sticking around LiveJournal with the new ownership should seriously consider planning your exit. The management company doesn't understand the users, doesn't want to understand the users, and if the users in any way want to express displeasure with any decisions (made without any dialogue WITH the users), they don't want to hear from it and are already labelling the users as subversive or worse. Here, follow for yourself. It's a little tricky, because the new owners are Russian and the speech was in Russian, but a competent translation is included.... http://darkrosetiger.livejournal.com/373663.html Longtime users are already planning switches to different journal sites.

Sadly, deception and lies are still with us, and technology hasn't removed that. Technology also hasn't CAUSED that- it's not a GADGET or a SCIENCE problem- it's a SOCIAL problem. I'm sorry your friend was burned. I've been burned before and it sucks. (Then again, I've also been not-burned, which is great.) One warning, of course, was the phrase "whirlwind." Consumer groups warn against any purchase (a financial committment) where it's based on a RUSH, or when the salesperson is stressing a "hurry." Your friend needed to exercise caution, and then more caution. So would anyone reading this who's considering meeting someone, regardless of medium. You can meet someone wonderful. Or someone awful. Or anything in-between.

It's not all you CAN say, but it is all you WILL say. This is STILL neither a jury nor a court of law. None of us have confused it for that, nor think the rules are the same for discussion and court- except you. OUTSIDE the court of law, it is not practical to follow the rules of the law. That's why we're under no requirement to do so. (Except in your imagination.) And your premise has been refuted, repeatedly, by people who actually KNOW the law, who WORK with the law, who TEACH the law. However, you, the layman who has never STUDIED the law, have concluded you understand the law better than professors of law, etc.

If one limits oneself to only what's written in Scripture, it's obvious this is WRONG on several counts. "No church politics." Gee, that discounts Peter chiding the Law-mongers who wanted Judaism continued, complete with the yoke of the Law that was too heavy for them or their ancestors to bear. No "underhanded machinations." Gee, that discounts Alexander the coopersmith. No "divisions." HA! No "denominations". Gee, that discounts the "Paul-Apollos-Cephas-Christ" people, of whom the last set were the craziest. Divisions and pettiness didn't enter at any point because there would have to have been a time it wasn't around SOMEWHERE. Maybe the day of Pentecost ITSELF, but after that....

That's it.

It seems like you're going somewhere with this- that you're looking for a SPECIFIC answer. How about letting the rest of us know what's on your mind?