Which was why I questioned Marsha's return to his motorcoach the next day.
I don't know, seems like she was just looking for trouble and possibly encouraged additional abuse.
Who knows?
"Looking for trouble.."
Hmmmm. This statement betrays your sentiments.
A woman with boundary issues would have wanted (very naively) to go back simply because he said, "I could have screwed you, but I didn't."
She would have wanted to prove to herself that he was still a good man; that he was still the MOG that she believed him to be. She could have rationalized to herself that he "showed restraint."
Perhaps she originally wanted to confront him and then somehow convinced herself that he wouldn't do it again. Suppose she just lost her nerve about confronting him.
Edited because I started to write this post in the sense of "what if I had been Marsha..."
If he cited his sources, it would be obvious that his only clever posts were cut-and-pasted
from Holocaust denial websites. That would take most of what little relevance they had away from the posts.
And he's not getting "hammered", his wrongful deeds are being exposed.
That's one thing you can expect here at the GSC.
Well, let's overlook the fact and not bother to mention or bring up WW parroting Nizkor without reference to Nizkor ... oh no. I am sure others didn't recognize him doing it but I did. Not many recognized him doing it simply because not many people are familiar with Nizkor's arguments. Of course, he mistakenly though I had not heard the same "Nizkor argument" he was bringing up on the Holocaust denial thread, but wanted it to appear he originatated the argument?
I will thoroughly admit however, that a lot of the revisionist arguments and the reasoning behind those arguments hold a lot of universal application and truth behind them. The "reality" comment I found was appropriate and since it had an universal application I brought it up in this instance. Unfortunately I can't say the same thing for many of Nizkor arguments that they present, nor does one readily find a universal application to a lot of their reasoning... That's why I'm afraid you won't find me parroting Nizkor or "plagarizing them", much like WW has.
"All men are born with a sexual predatory nature ....."
Care to back that up with some expert opinion? Particulary the predatory part.
I will agree with the sexual part. I will agree with sin nature. But I am not so sure that sexual predation is inate within all men at birth. You need to offer some proof concerning the "predatory" part.
Let me help you out some:
Main Entry: pred·a·to·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈpre-də-ˌtȯr-ē\
Function: adjective
1.
a
:
of, relating to, or practicing plunder, pillage, or rapine
b
:
inclined or intended to injure or exploit others for personal gain or profit <
1. My swearing an oath is wrong. (Unknown to me at the time) - James 5:12)
2. The people that asked me to swear the oath were wrong in asking. ( James 5:12)
3. Later, I am asked to do something wrong as a requirement to keep that oath.
How do you define "wrong"?
One persons "wrong" may not be another persons "wrong". Difficult to answer these questions as they can go different ways depending upon the facts of a situation and the heart and mindset of the person making the commitment or swearing the oath.
Care to back that up with some expert opinion? Particulary the predatory part.
I will agree with the sexual part. I will agree with sin nature.
But you need to prove the "predatory" part. Let me help you out some:
Main Entry: pred·a·to·ryPronunciation: \ˈpre-də-ˌtȯr-ē\
Function: adjective
1 a: of, relating to, or practicing plunder, pillage, or rapine b: inclined or intended to injure or exploit others for personal gain or profit <predatory pricing practices>2: living by predation:predaceous; also: adapted to predation
LCM started this kick sometime while I was in residence (and vp was still alive.)
He said that anytime you said you would do something it was a 'vow.' He especially hated it when a couple announced their engagement and then broke it off.
"When thou vowest a vow..."
So, if you said you'd stop at the store on your way home, you broke a vow because you didn't keep your word.
"Say what you mean and mean what you say..."
Sooo... when you said you were going in residence - that was to be taken as a vow. No of raising your right hand was necessary.
It was manipulation. It most likely was used to guilt many into doing something they didn't want to do.
Understood...it WAS blatant manipulation. You didn`t find out that it was considered an unbreakable vow that you would be accountible to God for untill after you had applied.
One persons "wrong" may not be another persons "wrong". Difficult to answer these questions as they can go different ways depending upon the facts of a situation and the heart and mindset of the person making the commitment or swearing the oath.
OM... c'mon... define "wrong" any way you want and then answer the question... define it in simple or complex terms... just assume it's "wrong" and quit dancing around like Mike.
I've known for a while that you've come around to 'veepee holds some responsibility'... where we differ is that "veepee holds ALL of the responsibility".
I know that there were women who willingly engaged in sexual acts with veepee and others and were proud of it to boot... one (that I know of) even posts here at GSC... but that's not the point, that doesn't excuse veepee's behavior...
HE knew better, HE should've done better... unless (in his mind) it was all about money and sex from the beginning... then he'd have no thought about taking advantage of every situation he thought he could get away with... oh... wait... hmmm
:unsure: Wasn't the corpse training originally just to teach people to be good twig coordinators in their own home and town of their own choosing?
We were supposed to "Go forth as leaders and workers in areas of concern, interest and greed need."
Vp said something to the effect of us being all just twig leaders... no matter at what level we served it was just a twig leader with more responsibility.
I know that there were women who willingly engaged in sexual acts with veepee and others and were proud of it to boot... one (that I know of) even posts here at GSC... but that's not the point, that doesn't excuse veepee's behavior...
....
But then, we are to believe it somehow exuse's theirs? Of course, that's not supposed to be the point either, is it? The vicitm mentality here is so thick that anyone could easly cut through it with a knife if they wanted.
The point is that it wouldn't have happened, and we wouldn't have these conversations IF he'd been who and what he said he was... regardless of the women's intention or not...
LCM started this kick sometime while I was in residence (and vp was still alive.)
He said that anytime you said you would do something it was a 'vow.' He especially hated it when a couple announced their engagement and then broke it off.
"When thou vowest a vow..."
So, if you said you'd stop at the store on your way home, you broke a vow because you didn't keep your word.
"Say what you mean and mean what you say..."
Sooo... when you said you were going in residence - that was to be taken as a vow. No of raising your right hand was necessary.
It was manipulation. It most likely was used to guilt many into doing something they didn't want to do.
I still believe its the right way to go, and biblical, even though it may be used against someone if they fail to live up to that standard. Golly, it isn't manipulation to expect someone to keep their word.
and that OM, brings me right back to "so you're saying that God cherishes and respects an oath, vow, etc above a human life"... that's exactly what you're saying here...
I wouldn't get too incensed with Oldies sexual predator comment. He said it was a "nature" that all men were born with. Now I am not sure if men means mankind or just male humans. He will need to clarify that.
The Bible says that all men (mankind) are born with a sin nature. Sin covers a lot of area and sexual predation is certainly sin. But is that the kind of sin nature that the Bible is refering to? I don't think so.
I have read in the Bible where all men are liars, but I haven't read yet where all men are natural sexual predators.
If all men are born with a sexual predatory nature, then what is it that prevents that nature from coming out in 99 percent of the human population? If it were a knowledge of the word, fellowship with God, speaking in toungues, Apostleship, etc then it would seem that VPW would have had control over it. But Oldies has conceded that VPW did not have control over it.
Are there implications here? What can we infer?
I am interested in seeing if Oldies can provide some credible biological or antropological evidence of his statement. And not just misrepresent what I have said above and use it as his "proof".
The point is that it wouldn't have happened, and we wouldn't have these conversations IF he'd been who and what he said he was... regardless of the women's intention or not...
Life sure is easier when you can play the "blame game", isn't it? That's the reason you don't see too many with a "victim mentality' mindset displaying the same assets of one who displays a "champion mentality" mindset. A champion doesn't look for someone else to blame.
OM... c'mon... define "wrong" any way you want and then answer the question... define it in simple or complex terms... just assume it's "wrong" and quit dancing around like Mike.
Tom, for purposes of this discussion on oaths, we need to define our terms to make sure we are on the same page.
Perhaps we can save this for next week, but its getting awefully close to the end of the day, and its FRIDAY, and you know what that means. :)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
49
68
30
33
Popular Days
Oct 19
97
Oct 18
73
Oct 17
50
Oct 22
46
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 49 posts
oldiesman 68 posts
WordWolf 30 posts
doojable 33 posts
Popular Days
Oct 19 2007
97 posts
Oct 18 2007
73 posts
Oct 17 2007
50 posts
Oct 22 2007
46 posts
oldiesman
Oh yes, that was never disputed by me.
Which was why I questioned Marsha's return to his motorcoach the next day.
I don't know, seems like she was just looking for trouble and possibly encouraged additional abuse.
Who knows?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
"Looking for trouble.."
Hmmmm. This statement betrays your sentiments.
A woman with boundary issues would have wanted (very naively) to go back simply because he said, "I could have screwed you, but I didn't."
She would have wanted to prove to herself that he was still a good man; that he was still the MOG that she believed him to be. She could have rationalized to herself that he "showed restraint."
Perhaps she originally wanted to confront him and then somehow convinced herself that he wouldn't do it again. Suppose she just lost her nerve about confronting him.
Edited because I started to write this post in the sense of "what if I had been Marsha..."
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Very good.
What say ye Oldies ?
Am I obligated to fulfill an oath if :
1. My swearing an oath is wrong. (Unknown to me at the time) - James 5:12)
2. The people that asked me to swear the oath were wrong in asking. ( James 5:12)
3. Later, I am asked to do something wrong as a requirement to keep that oath.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
wait just a minute there Goey... there's no more floor for OM to paint and the door's on the opposite wall...
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Well, let's overlook the fact and not bother to mention or bring up WW parroting Nizkor without reference to Nizkor ... oh no. I am sure others didn't recognize him doing it but I did. Not many recognized him doing it simply because not many people are familiar with Nizkor's arguments. Of course, he mistakenly though I had not heard the same "Nizkor argument" he was bringing up on the Holocaust denial thread, but wanted it to appear he originatated the argument?
I will thoroughly admit however, that a lot of the revisionist arguments and the reasoning behind those arguments hold a lot of universal application and truth behind them. The "reality" comment I found was appropriate and since it had an universal application I brought it up in this instance. Unfortunately I can't say the same thing for many of Nizkor arguments that they present, nor does one readily find a universal application to a lot of their reasoning... That's why I'm afraid you won't find me parroting Nizkor or "plagarizing them", much like WW has.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Proof, please, of WW plagiarizing like you do. <_<
Don't make accusations like that without backing them up.
You can't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Care to back that up with some expert opinion? Particulary the predatory part.
I will agree with the sexual part. I will agree with sin nature. But I am not so sure that sexual predation is inate within all men at birth. You need to offer some proof concerning the "predatory" part.
Let me help you out some:
Main Entry: pred·a·to·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈpre-də-ˌtȯr-ē\
Function: adjective
1.
2: living by predation : predaceous; also : adapted to predation (Merriam- Webster)
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
How do you define "wrong"?
One persons "wrong" may not be another persons "wrong". Difficult to answer these questions as they can go different ways depending upon the facts of a situation and the heart and mindset of the person making the commitment or swearing the oath.
I'll get back to you on that. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Who swore an oath??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
LCM started this kick sometime while I was in residence (and vp was still alive.)
He said that anytime you said you would do something it was a 'vow.' He especially hated it when a couple announced their engagement and then broke it off.
"When thou vowest a vow..."
So, if you said you'd stop at the store on your way home, you broke a vow because you didn't keep your word.
"Say what you mean and mean what you say..."
Sooo... when you said you were going in residence - that was to be taken as a vow. No of raising your right hand was necessary.
It was manipulation. It most likely was used to guilt many into doing something they didn't want to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
:unsure: Wasn't the corpse training originally just to teach people to be good twig coordinators in their own home and town of their own choosing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
I did. See modified post# 275. (Edited to insert post#.)
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Understood...it WAS blatant manipulation. You didn`t find out that it was considered an unbreakable vow that you would be accountible to God for untill after you had applied.
That was how it was presented to me Belle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
OM... c'mon... define "wrong" any way you want and then answer the question... define it in simple or complex terms... just assume it's "wrong" and quit dancing around like Mike.
I've known for a while that you've come around to 'veepee holds some responsibility'... where we differ is that "veepee holds ALL of the responsibility".
I know that there were women who willingly engaged in sexual acts with veepee and others and were proud of it to boot... one (that I know of) even posts here at GSC... but that's not the point, that doesn't excuse veepee's behavior...
HE knew better, HE should've done better... unless (in his mind) it was all about money and sex from the beginning... then he'd have no thought about taking advantage of every situation he thought he could get away with... oh... wait... hmmm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
We were supposed to "Go forth as leaders and workers in areas of concern, interest and greed need."
Vp said something to the effect of us being all just twig leaders... no matter at what level we served it was just a twig leader with more responsibility.
Now I need that barf emoticon....
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I went back and looked. I don't see any documentation, just accusation and excuse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
But then, we are to believe it somehow exuse's theirs? Of course, that's not supposed to be the point either, is it? The vicitm mentality here is so thick that anyone could easly cut through it with a knife if they wanted.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
The point is that it wouldn't have happened, and we wouldn't have these conversations IF he'd been who and what he said he was... regardless of the women's intention or not...
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I still believe its the right way to go, and biblical, even though it may be used against someone if they fail to live up to that standard. Golly, it isn't manipulation to expect someone to keep their word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
and that OM, brings me right back to "so you're saying that God cherishes and respects an oath, vow, etc above a human life"... that's exactly what you're saying here...
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Hey folks,
I wouldn't get too incensed with Oldies sexual predator comment. He said it was a "nature" that all men were born with. Now I am not sure if men means mankind or just male humans. He will need to clarify that.
The Bible says that all men (mankind) are born with a sin nature. Sin covers a lot of area and sexual predation is certainly sin. But is that the kind of sin nature that the Bible is refering to? I don't think so.
I have read in the Bible where all men are liars, but I haven't read yet where all men are natural sexual predators.
If all men are born with a sexual predatory nature, then what is it that prevents that nature from coming out in 99 percent of the human population? If it were a knowledge of the word, fellowship with God, speaking in toungues, Apostleship, etc then it would seem that VPW would have had control over it. But Oldies has conceded that VPW did not have control over it.
Are there implications here? What can we infer?
I am interested in seeing if Oldies can provide some credible biological or antropological evidence of his statement. And not just misrepresent what I have said above and use it as his "proof".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
OM, I find it hard to believe that even you really believe that...
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Life sure is easier when you can play the "blame game", isn't it? That's the reason you don't see too many with a "victim mentality' mindset displaying the same assets of one who displays a "champion mentality" mindset. A champion doesn't look for someone else to blame.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Tom, for purposes of this discussion on oaths, we need to define our terms to make sure we are on the same page.
Perhaps we can save this for next week, but its getting awefully close to the end of the day, and its FRIDAY, and you know what that means. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.