WordWolf

They were scared of more than "continuing the line". Genesis 19 shows destruction of city after city, and Lot and his daughters went and hid in a cave in the mountains. They thought it was the end of the world, and they were the last 3 people ALIVE. Genesis 19:31 (KJV) "And the firstborn said unto the younger, 'Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:' " Doesn't mean they were RIGHT, but it's a bit more understandable that someone might do something that extreme if they thought the situation was that desperate. And I came to the same conclusion about their morals that you did. My OPINION is that Lot lied thru his teeth when he addressing that mob and claimed his daughters were, um, 'virtuous.' Of course, this is a digression from the main subject. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled topic.

Bingo. I took it on the Beta video tapes. (It was never on VHS-at least hq never authorized it.) So, it was on the audio version, which was a prototype of the video version. That explains where lcm got it, and the others. That's exactly how I see that. Thank YOU, Roy. That was half my question right answered right there in one post. So did I. The "Jesus was raped" thing was from lcm in the early 80s, possibly also the 70s. He mentioned it in his 2-tape rant against homosexuality, "Victorious Unity in One God." (There was about 5 minutes on unity, and something over an hour on homosexuality.)

This topic is NOT meant to mock a serious subject. It's ONLY meant to examine specific claims made in twi. Specifically, that Samson and Jesus were molested, and the accounts of both were included in the Bible. As to the Samson account, the verses used to justify this were Judges 16:25 and 27, when the Philistines had captured Samson. Judges 16:25 (KJV) "And it came to pass, when their hearts were merry, that they said, 'Call for Samson, that he may make us sport.' And they called for Samson out of the prison house; and he made them sport: and they set him between the pillars." Judges 16:27 "Now the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the roof about 3,000 men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport." The phrase "made sport", here, I was told, meant that the Philistines molested him. I was told this as a partial explanation of a DIFFERENT doctrine. I questioned the claim-made by lcm and others- (lcm did one of his 'you'd know this of you worked The Word' on this)- that Jesus was molested when he was captured and tortured. IIRC, these would be the verses used to explain this one... Matthew 27:29 (KJV) "And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!" Matthew 27:31 "And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own rainment on him, and led him away to crucify him." Mark 15:17-20 "And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head, And began to salute him, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him." Luke 23:11 "And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate." Now, it seems to me that the clear and evident meaning in the verses of these accounts is that both men were beaten and laughed at and made a spectacle of- but to read into EITHER that this included any kind of sexual contact is to insert a meaning where it does not exist. It is what vpw called "private interpretation." Can any of you logically find his meaning in ANY of those accounts? Can any of you find a commentary that supports it? ======== Separate question. I know lcm taught these. Does anyone here remember vpw teaching them? It's all well and good to SUPPOSE that vpw taught lcm this- just as he taught him the "swear" thing- but I'd like at least one person to sing out and say "yes-I heard vpw teach this, really." Thank you again for your cooperation. (And no, this is the last question of this sort that I have at this time. The OTHER question made me think of this one.)

So it's something like the secular branch of the Franciscan order? No formal vows, you train and you just do your best? Or do orders come down thru Opus Dei in specific things? I don't mean "read Acts this week", or "pray for the hurricane survivors", I mean stuff like "proceed to the next town over..."

In other words, the IVP BBC is not taking sides on this one. "Undoubtedly"? I get suspicious when a minority position is irrefutable or unable to be doubted. That usually means that further scrutiny shows it is an unwarranted assumption that someone's trying to avoid defending by claiming it's unassailable. I noticed that he can make no stronger case than anyone for the opposing POV, and they didn't say theirs was "unassailable..." So, he's supporting the minority position-no "grab" was involved. Has anyone found support for vpw's and Victor Hamilton's position other than "this undoubtedly means that"?

Well, that information is all part of the "one possibility." Either the guy swearing did the grab, or he didn't do the grab. So far, that argued AGAINST the grab.

Honestly, it's been on one of my "back burners" for some time now. It came up in a discussion here quite some time ago, and that wasn't the right time to question whether or not it ever happened. However, something about it was particularly bugging me today (no idea WHAT, but SOMETHING) so I gave it my shot, then submitted the question for everyone else. For that matter, it reminded me of something else, but one question at a time. What??? Maybe someone's spoofed my address. Check the GSC'ers who HAVE your address, AND have mine, and have them do a virus test. Can't be many of them-few have MINE.

I think you confused this account with the OTHER account where he talked about those evil "establishment" ministers. The Paul was a puh-vert one, he stood up, said 'shut up!" and left. End of story. The OTHER one was where he AND HIS FAMILY attended a church that had a guest speaker. The guest speaker basically said the Bible was full of fiction and so on.. His son (Don) had more sense than he did, since he excused himself not long into the sermon, saying he couldnt sit and listen to this. Afterwards, vpw and mrs got up to leave. An usher or whoever stopped him, and said they were sorry he had to leave. vpw supposedly replied "Sir, it has been a DISGRACE for me to have been here today. Then I gave him one of my brochures for power for abundant living." Two different stories. I'd agree on that...

No, that's not what was said.... Here's what happened... vpw made a claim during the taped pfal. That claim was one of the references to how bad Christian ministers are. It was when he was covering Paul's thorn in the flesh. He said that the conclusion he made was that whatever affliction the minister had, he claimed Paul had-if it was a foot injury, he would say Paul had a hurt foot. vpw claimed he once attended a sermon where the minister said that 'Paul was a sex puh-vert--that he had a physical weakness for women.' vpw claimed he stood up, said "Shut up!" and stormed out of the room. So, vpw never said HE thought Paul was a sex puh-vert.

I'm requesting the assistance of all those here who have their own Bible resources, commentaries, and so on. Genesis 24:2-3 (KJV) "And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that rules over all that he had, 'Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: And I will make thee swear...'" Genesis 24:9 (KJV) "And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and sware to him concerning that matter." ==== Now, vpw taught that this meant that the man swearing put his hands on the external reproductive organs, as many of you are aware. (He said the guy grabbed the other guy's nuts when swearing.) I've been doing some checking. I can find references to the thigh ITSELF being symbolic of the 'power' of the reproductive organ. (That is, that the actual, LITERAL thigh has that connotation- not that the word "thigh" MEANS the reproductive organs.) I can find a notice that a "few" (no names) modern readers think that the word "thigh" should be translated as vpw did. I can find a few anti-Christian websites that translate the verses this way. I can find a note that John Calvin said (contemporary to his lifetime) that-in the East- they STILL swear with the hand on the thigh in a few places. (I can't find the references to it in use now.) I can find references to people thinking that the word "testify" or "swear" is connected to the word "testes", when the truth of the matter is that the word "testari" is the origin of "testimony". ("Testari" meaning "third", as a "witness" is a "neutral THIRD-party".) So, having exhausted most of my own resources, I turn to you guys. What do your resources say? Is there actual merit in this claim? Is this another case of "I found a secret which is the truth-we all have secret knowledge!" Is it another case of a man's obsession with his own reproductive organs?

[i'm sure we didn't, and as a gesture of niceness I'll translate it into simple English for you. If you care, you will learn something. (If not, then not.)] [Wrong TWICE in ONE sentence. That's pretty economical.Error 1: Your "opinion" was not attacked. There was no "I THINK that..." You posted "This is simple dr wierwille was an apostle." That was the ENTIRE content of your post. That was a statement of fact. So, your statement of fact was challenged. What made it worse was that there was an intelligent discussion, where positions were supported, in play at the time- "This is my opinion, and here's why I hold it"- and you just dumped a statement as if you have divine fiat to end discussions with a flat statement. Surely even a LITTLE attention would have shown there was a discussion and people supported their positions. Error 2: Your statement of fact wasn't "attacked" because it's disliked. Your statement of fact was challenged because you failed to support it in any way whatsoever. Furthermore, the opposite position had been ALREADY presented AND SUPPORTED. Thus, your post said, in effect- "I don't care what logic and evidence say, I claim the opposite position is the truth." If you spent some time among normal people on the internet, you'd see that just making bald assertions usually invites everyone to point out that you failed to supply any justification for your claim. That's HARDLY unique to here, and there's plenty of boards where they would have been a LOT harsher on you for pulling that. ] [You failed to demonstrate that this was THINKING. You presented an opinion as FACT and provided NO reason for anyone to think that it had ANY chance of being true. That made your statement as strong as if you'd claimed the earth was flat and didn't explain your reasoning. There's a difference between THINKING and REASONING, and DOGMATISM and BLIND OBEDIENCE. Your own idol, vpw, claimed that most people have been tricked, and only THINK that they think. If anything, you've demonstrated that you fall into the category he was referring to. Mind you, if you could have actually SUPPORTED your position, that would have been a different story.] [As anyone can clearly see, your "theory" (which was a SUPPOSITION,not a "THEORY" at all) was NOT proven. Form a hypothesis, and prepare and execute a double-blind, and THEN maybe you'll have a real "theory".] [Another double play! Two errors in one sentence! You've proven NEITHER that you were "hated" nor that what you believe is the truth! The facts actually are that you have no idea how to reason and debate. IF YOU PUT IN THE EFFORT, that CAN be changed. We might even help. (This here post can be considered "help", in that it's breaking down the flaws in your process, and you can apply this to later posts and make more logical posts.)] [You STILL haven't offered any support for your position, but at least you're phrasing yourself correctly there. This is your belief.]

Oops. The correct link I meant to provide is http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

I wasn't going to go there, but you asked..... I've read your posts so far. They reflect a lack of experience in communication online. (I don't know what you communicate like offline, but few communicate very differently when switching media.) They reflect a lack of understanding of basic "netiquette." That can fly here, where that's true of more than a few people, and may work in a twi-type environment where communication with the outside world is verboten. It wouldn't fly on most boards I attend, where people your age are expected to communicate better than that-and they do. You also have expressed a lack of understanding of admin and moderator duties HERE. That means you don't understand them ANYWHERE. When I got here, I understood them. That means that I've disagreed with the mods, but never questioned their suitability for their tasks, since I understood what they were doing. All of that-lack of online experience, lack of moderator experience and pathos- add to that that it's highly unlikely you'll be appointing moderators who HAVE such experience, since you'll have to basically hand over the entire board to them- and that means you've some life-lessons coming up. Thank you and have a nice day!

Technically, GS is not "the haters" of twi. We have compassion towards the people who are currently in, and many have pleasant memories of positive interactions we had when in-with each other, not the framework or its executors. Further, sounding the alarm on something is hardly the same as "hating" it, just as refusing to sound an alarm is hardly the same as "loving" it. ======== Further, vpw-love is hardly a "middle-ground" between -the group that pretends vpw is a distant memory at best, but was great once and -the people who were tricked into thinking that he was great once, but know better now Finally, as to whether a "middle ground" is necessarily any less "correct" than either, I offer this: http://www.nikzor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html Thank you all so much! :)

[WordWolf in boldface as normal.]

Good point. I wasn't even paying attention to the number, there. I'm expecting that the "100,000" was a number based on the number of people SIGNED UP for pfal, not the number of people who FINISHED pfal. When I first took it, 8 were signed up, 7 appeared at Session 1, 3 completed Session 12. The best rule of thumb I've heard has been that membership in any year (or whatever you want to call being their thrall) could be figured by taking the number of attendees at the ROA, then doubling that number. That meant attendance at the ROA increased and decreased proportionally to the regular attendance at fellowships. Oddly enough, I came to the same conclusion without checking with anyone. (About proportions, not doubling the number.)

My count was that 80% of those active in twi as of ROA '88 had left as of ROA '89, and some people (unsure the numbers) left before that (as a result of PoP) or after that (needed to finish something up before leaving.) One statistic I saw was that 18% of attendees remained after about 1991, so my numbers matched pretty well. The people who left 85-88, IMHO, left more due to PoP than other reasons, and the people who left 88-90, IMHO, left due to lcm's line in the sand. However, that might have been "the straw that broke the camel's back" if they were thinking about PoP already. Of course, if lcm hadn't been thinking about PoP, he would never have drawn his line in the sand in the FIRST place (IMHO.)

John Cleese Shrek 2 Eddie Murphy

Really? So you knew: A) the entire contents of "How to Enjoy the Bible" was incorporated into the Foundational class, and therefore the Orange Book? B) the book "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit"/"The Giver and His Gifts" was added to Stiles' book to make the White Book (RTHST)? C) "Are the Dead Alive Now?" was the compilation of 2 of Bullinger's books, including "The Rich Man and Lazarus:an Intermediate State?" I noticed you skipped mentioning the people whose names NEVER came up but whose material did-with vpw's name on it... BG Leonard JE Stiles EW Kenyon (Ok, we knew about 1-2 of Kenyon's books.)

No, we just needed a longer memory. It's "Benny & Joon."

[WordWolf in brackets and boldface as usual.] 'M. D. Vaden' date='May 22 2006, 01:49 AM' post='241937' I like that posted reply. You don't seem to have jumped the gun or hopped into a band wagon. [Appearances are deceiving in this case. OM sounds oh-so-reasonable in any one post, but try to follow the conversation whenever any wrongdoing of vpw is discussed. Then the only things OM never knows for sure is that vpw ever wronged anyone. That's true in this thread as well as others. However, an eagerness on your OWN part to exonerate vpw of anything he was caught doing and whitewash anything away there's any hope to- that might bias your responses somewhat. OM says the same thing-therefore he's "reasonable". (He also shows this same skepticism when facing the subject of 6 million people killed when vpw says they weren't- and you disagree with OM there. However, he uses the same approach on both threads. Perhaps the same "ignore the evidence" approach on that thread is in use here? Maybe...] It reminded me of a verse "Thy words were found and I did eat them, and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart" (punctuation?). I think many times about OT men who went to the already written word and took possession of the words as their own too. [No-they credited Scripture as the source when it was the source. Agreeing with Scripture, quoting Scripture, citing Scripture- few people would ever raise an issue with that.] Nothing under the sun is new. Unless Dr. Wierwille knowingly concealed that other people had the same teaching as himself, it would not really be stealing or plagerism. [bINGO! THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED! vpw retyped Stiles' book and produced the 1st edition of RTHST. vpw added books from Bullinger and produced later editions. The first iteration of the pfal class was called "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today." It was held 3 months after vpw retook BG Leonard's CTC's "Gifts of the Spirit" class, which he first took earlier that year. vpw got permission from Leonard to run Leonard's class on a one-time basis locally, and sent Leonard a photo of the class for his scrapbook. Meanwhile, vpw told the students of this class "this is my class on 'Receiving the Holy Spirit Today'". It was Leonard's class with Leonard's name crossed out, and vpw's name written in with crayon. vpw took 2 books of Bullinger, and retyped them as "Are the Dead Alive Now?", including "The Rich Man and Lazarus-An Intermediate State?" (You can read Bullinger's book online and compare it all you want.) In NONE of those cases did vpw say "I'm taking the material of this person's book and presenting it here" nor "this class is a modification of the class taught by BG Leonard". vpw knowingly concealed that these books and that class were direct copies of the work of other people. (This could have been avoided the same way Woodrow's book "Babylon Mystery Religion" was a rewrite of Hislop's "the Two Babylons", yet NOBODY complains because it was done in an honest-and LEGAL-fashion. The way vpw did it is illegal in all 5 states. It was plagiarism. In some cases, it was BLATANT plagiarism- like when he used the characters from Leonard's class: Johnny Jumpup and Maggie Muggins and Henry Belocco. He copied them over when he copied over the material. BTW, those 285 occurrences of the word "spirit" that vpw makes a big deal of studying out? You can make a GREAT headstart on studying them if you do what he did and read Bullinger's book "the Giver and His Gifts", aka "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit", which lists all 285 occurrences and gives the number. vpw never mentioned that little detail, either. In the Orange Book (PFAL) and in the White Book (RTHST), the introductions are rather clear that each book is the product of vpw and his study- and has little, if anything, to do with other Christians- who, BTW, are sincere but ignorant. The closest he ever comes to admitting both books are retypings and paraphrases of the books of others (like Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible) was buried some 200-300 pages into "the Way:Living in Love", where he says "Nothing I do is original." Some people suggest this is equivalent to an outright admission of the copying he intentionally did, and that his actions were not illegal. (One person claimed God TOLD him to plagiarize.)] Any teaching that Dr. Wierwilled had, could not have originated with anybody whom he supposedly "stole" it from. Because any valid teaching material would have been in the scripture for hundreds of years. Possibly hundreds of men and women would have recognized and taught portions of it through the centuries without a guarantee of it being recorded. Many critics that cry "plagerism" spend little time holding the spotlight on the people they think are the ones stolen from. Why don't they take it a step further; take it deeper by another layer? Did it originate with the person whom it was stolen from? Or did the other person plagerize it too. [Fascinating. You might want to spend a few minutes reviewing what plagiarism IS. Here's a quick link to something on it, right on this site: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm Here's a dumbed-down rule of thumb on the subject... If I reproduce someone else's work, and cite the source, that is not plagiarism. (Like that linked editorial: If I cut and pasted it here, and said "this is what Raf said in the editorial "the Integrity of Your Word", that's not plagiarism.) If I happen to say something similar to someone, that's not plagiarism. (Many Christians have taught on John 3:16. If I happen to make the same points as a local clergyman made in 1972 from his pulpit at his local church, then that's not plagiarism.) If I take the work of someone else and present it as my own, THAT is plagiarism. (If I took that editorial, changed a few words, and just posted it, THAT would be plagiarism. If I got a copy of the sermon of that local clergyman, and then taught it myself with no mention of him, that is plagiarism. (It's possibly forgiveable if I do that for a little sermon from one podium-albeit still a crime. To commit it to tape, video or print and use it to make a profit, that's both illegal AND immoral.)] It can still boil down to the "from one extreme to another mentality". The important part is not the person with whom a teaching originated, but "what does the word say?" Is it the Word? It's again the game of putting the focus on a man or woman, and taking the focus off of God. [Actually, it's the opposite. When someone takes credit for the work of another, then it becomes about THAT person. HE deliberately places the focus on HIMSELF rather than on God where it should be. He also disrespects his fellow Christians whom he plagiarized, and his fellow Christians to whom he lied. Uncovering his deceptions and lies is NOT "ungodly" or "carnal", it's exposing the "ungodliness" and "carnality" of someone claiming to represent God, and God thought that task was so important, he designated prophets to carry out that function. If it's an unnecessary job, you can go ahead and tell God that He got a bunch of His own men killed for nothing. (Prophets often spoke at the risk of being murdered for speaking the truth.)] When the focus is taken off God and put on any man or woman, that's an indirect and subtle attack of Satan: a way of gaining indirect worship. [Correct. And for a man to take the best work of a number of Christians, reproduce it and claim he's the sole author, calls himself "THE Teacher", puts forth that he's the best man of God in 20 centuries, and that all other Christians alive today are in error or worse, THAT is a way of gaining worship. When one adds all sorts of special privileges-like expensive vehicles, airplanes, and lots of luxuries- then it becomes even more blatant.] And the "pawns" that carry out that task unknowingly become Satan's little alter boys; Satan's little priests. Such men and women are then "dished-out" the little reward of feeling important, of apparently looking smart like they have solved some difficult case. [if you mean the posters that post here, they do quite an effective job of exposing lies told by twi, past and present. They have done a lot to help others escape twi, or move on after having been severed from twi, simply by posting. (Some have done more and are MORE helpful.) As to any cause for complaint against them... Why is it perfectly acceptable for a minister to construct an elaborate framework to rape women, then use that framework to drug and rape women, and kick them out of the group and slander their names and ruin their reputation if it looks like they'll talk, but to expose his felonies to the light of day is deplorable? Isaiah 5:20 "Woe 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!" ]

And not always even in homes, unless the Tyrannus' school qualifies as a "home." This should be old news to anyone who had a copy of "Babylon Mystery Religion", which had a chapter on this being antithetical to 1st century Christianity- and you all HAD a copy... Further, there was accountability and nobody was inviolate. Paul gave Peter a stern talking to in public. Imagine how many people would have grabbed you and dragged you bodily off grounds if you had tried that to vpw sometime.

One more thread discussing the MLM connection...

Here's another MLM discussion...

MLM? We discussed MLM's here...