Whether VP had sex with young women or with old women, he shouldn't have.
Even if some of them consented, he shouldn't have. He wasn't an Old Testament king; he was a minister. There was no kinddom, and the women did not belong to him. Period.
Whether the young women were stone-cold sober or drunk on their butts, he shouldn't have.
There is nothing in the Bible, nothing, that justifies that behavior. I understand the temptation. I even comprehend how someone could succumb to it, but that doesn't make it right.
I'd like to hear some guy who slipped Ecstasy in a girl's drink in a bar and got caught tell the judge, "Hey, I was just trying to loosen her up sexually." Can you imagine what the judge would say?
Oldiesman, could you please reply to Goey's posts # 283 and #297?
I for one would like to see how "all" men are sexually predatory in nature.
Goey, I hope you do not mind me using your responses, but you articulated your responses much better than I could. If that is an issue, I'll knock it off, and post my own thoughts.
i was born in 1956. i forget when dr. wierwille was born
what age are you now, fellows ?
would you ever think of harming a teenage girl (18-19) young woman / lady / girl ? i don't think so
and i don't believe you would use being a "father" (in the word) as an excuse
love,ex
Ex, I'm 52 and no I would never think of harming a young (or old) woman (in a sexual or otherwise way). Well, I have thought about spanking my grand-daughter. Does that count? ;)
Is rape ever Okay? No. (I don't believe anyone would disagree with me there.)
The Viagra argument is moot since there was no drug of this nature around at the time. The drugs we're talking about are drugs that knock a person out.
The bottom line here is that vp used his position to manipulate young women into trusting him. he was married. They were at least 30 years younger than he was.
Would anyone here say, "Well, it's Okay since she was 21? (Even though he's 51.)
Imagine this young woman is your daughter. She's off at college and a 51 year old uses a drug on her then has his way with her. She's devastated. Are you really going to say to her, "Oh honey, you're an adult mature female now. He just wanted to loosen you up sexually."?
Now say she's 17 and he's 51. Say she's 17 and he's 47. Does it really make you feel any better about the situation? Sheesh! I'd be upset if a 17 year old was drugged and raped by a young man her own age. The age difference just increases the level of responsibility that would be expected from that man.
Wierwille was 51......when he filmed pfal in 1967.
Wierwille was 60......when PFAL '77 occurred.
Any young women that wierwille drugged and raped from 1978-1982........ :blink: :blink:
And......why do some vpw-defenders have to go back to the old testament and make comparison with solomon? Talk about a stretch of illogic..?? Try keeping it in perspective......the guy should have received serious jail time.
Thanks Skyrider. I was being conservative on purpose because I didn't know the exact numbers.
I understand......I just wanted to be specific, because it dispels little doubt (to most) that wierwille was a sick, narcisstic, perverted old man who preyed on "his cult followers."
Also......Oldies, Johniam, WTH and other docvic-defenders cannot squelch wierwille's atrocities and perversions, nor can they understand this evil contempt against God, His son, and the children of light. Thus, they are deceived and deceiving others of the wierwillian idolatry that ensnares twi to this day.
Obviously it ensnares you, too. You're going to spend every day of the rest of your lives cursing a dead man. Glad it's you and not me.
The truth is that most of those girls consented. But because they're girls they're not responsible for ANYTHING, right? You've come a long way, baby. <_<
This past year there were 2 disturbing headlines in STL. One involved a 46 year old female teacher at a middle school who was accused of, confessed to, and is awaiting sentence for having sexual relations with several boys. The other was about a 42 year old pizza place manager who kidnapped 2 boys, 11 and 13, and basically made sex slaves out of them. The prosecutor in the latter case said that "you'll never see anybody worse than this guy" or something to that affect.
Really? So, a middle school teacher who victimizes adolescent boys is not that bad, but a pizza mgr is? The woman got 2 days worth of headlines and that was it; the pizza guy...well, do a search on Michael Devlin see what comes up. Apparently in today's society women aren't responsible for anything. Must be nice.
We're not just defending a man; we're defending what he taught us and how it helped us, and all the evil in the devil's rectum doesn't invalidate that. We're defending Christianity; Christ's sacrifice of himself which God accepted and how the finality of said sacrifice makes us free.
You guys aren't free; you're in bondage to a dead man. You foolishly think this pleases God. You got all your scripture, you got all your emotions, you got all your excuses, but you don't have peace. Who do you think you're kidding?
Obviously it ensnares you, too. You're going to spend every day of the rest of your lives cursing a dead man. Glad it's you and not me.
No, I actually spend little time thinking about that dead man. I don't curse him at all. I do say that what he did was wrong.
The truth is that most of those girls consented. But because they're girls they're not responsible for ANYTHING, right? You've come a long way, baby. <_<
And you would know this... HOW?
First you said that these young women were mature adult females. Now you say they consented. Did you interview all of them? If they consented, then the drugs wouldn't have been necessary, would they?
I already stated that I felt sure that there were women who consented. BUT - geez John!...I'm gonna assume you're a 50-something guy. If a 19 year old came and threw herself at you would you just go along for the ride?
This past year there were 2 disturbing headlines in STL. One involved a 46 year old female teacher at a middle school who was accused of, confessed to, and is awaiting sentence for having sexual relations with several boys. The other was about a 42 year old pizza place manager who kidnapped 2 boys, 11 and 13, and basically made sex slaves out of them. The prosecutor in the latter case said that "you'll never see anybody worse than this guy" or something to that affect.
Really? So, a middle school teacher who victimizes adolescent boys is not that bad, but a pizza mgr is? The woman got 2 days worth of headlines and that was it; the pizza guy...well, do a search on Michael Devlin see what comes up. Apparently in today's society women aren't responsible for anything. Must be nice.
That middle school teacher is just as wrong as that man in that they are both having sex with minors. The man is seen as "more wrong" because he kidnapped the boys and made sex slaves out of them.
We're not just defending a man; we're defending what he taught us and how it helped us, and all the evil in the devil's rectum doesn't invalidate that. We're defending Christianity; Christ's sacrifice of himself which God accepted and how the finality of said sacrifice makes us free.
You're not defending Christianity at all. What you were taught has nothing to do with the heinous actions of that man. You know, there is a reason why there are warnings in the Epistles for leaders to not lead people astray. God set a standard. vp didn't meet it.
You and your wife come here and make fun of posters for spelling and grammatical errors. How loving and kind can that be? Let's see... if that's what YOU got from your Father in the Word, then I rest my case.
You guys aren't free; you're in bondage to a dead man. You foolishly think this pleases God. You got all your scripture, you got all your emotions, you got all your excuses, but you don't have peace. Who do you think you're kidding?
Who do you think you're kidding? You think you're pleasing God?
You're beholden to a dead, narcissistic pervert. You're still serving him nearly 20 years after his death. Protecting him. Helping to pass on his excuses for why he just had to do what he did.
All the women belonged to him anyway...
He was over-sexed...
The girls wanted it...
The devil made him do it...
Go ahead and tell everyone here just how vp was pleasing God when he drugged and raped even ONE girl.
You overestimate yourself if you think you're qualified to judge how peaceful another person is.
You want to protect a memory? Fine. Don't fault the rest of us for wanting to keep that memory in perspective.
The truth is that most of those girls consented. But because they're girls they're not responsible for ANYTHING, right? You've come a long way, baby. <_<
NO.........the truth is wierwille used his cult-status, his authoritarian position, his inner circle yes-men, his motorcoach, his liquor cabinet, AND/OR drugs to advance his sexual predation.
Rev. Billy Graham was a spiritual giant compared to the little piker, wierwille.
For all those who throw out the red herring that some of the women or girls consented: did Mrs. Wierwille consent to it? Did God?
No. But because of most of the women consenting; it facilitated his adultery.
They participated in it, helped it along, encouraged it, gave it wings.
Desiring to "bless the man of God".
Mrs. Wierwille --- I suppose she could have blasted the whole thing wide open; don't know why she didn't other than remaining silent for the sake of the entire ministry staying afloat.
I'd bet my last dollar that she believed the ministry was of God and didn't want the ministry to be blamed.
Oldies, I apologize. I should have been more specific and clear headed in my wording. I was and still am deeply offended by this post. That is no excuse for how I worded my own post to you.
. . . should have stopped right here. Even though I'm sure you didn't mean to -- everything else you wrote comes across as a feeble attempt to rationalize what you said. When I first read your "apology" I had to make a choice -- Seeing as how Dooj did apologize should I ignore her attempts at rationalization? I decided (obviously) that although it's admirable of you to do what I doubted you would I'm disappointed that you found it necessary to say anything other than: "I'm sorry Oldies. It was wrong of me to infer that you were a pedophile. Please forgive me."
I'd bet your last dollar that she was intimidated into silence by an intimidating man
I'll take that bet! Although it's possible that you're right -- possible -- I think she really did have a heart for the ministry. Many people choose to stay (as long as they did) for the same reason. I did but, eventually gave up the "fight". Some continued on because they thought the "fight" was worth it. And then some I've talked to told me: "Larry, where else is there to go? I just want to serve the Lord. You're not going to find a perfect church."
No. But because of most of the women consenting; it facilitated his adultery.
OM... again with these statements! WTF?
MOST? ...you keep on saying this where in the heck do you get MOST?
True, there were SOME that were facilitater's and enabler's through intimidation and/or coercion... who used their positions as well as the trust that others had in not only veepee but in them as well to convince and ensnare others... and those they could not convince, they drugged.
but MOST???
And again, REGARDLESS of the 'situation'... REGARDLESS!!! veepee should have "kept it in his pants"!!!
He was married. He was their minister. He was their teacher.
Obviously it ensnares you, too. You're going to spend every day of the rest of your lives cursing a dead man. Glad it's you and not me.
Hmmm, I haven't noticed anyone actually curse VPW. Has anyone really cursed VPW?.
This seems like one of the more typical responses that comes from the VPW defenders.
Where telling the facts is portrayed as cursing. Where calling a spade a spade is cursing.
Where few hours a week on this board, discussing VPW/TWI etc is portrayed as "cursing a
dead man for the rest of your life".
The truth is that most of those girls consented. But because they're girls they're not responsible
for ANYTHING, right? You've come a long way, baby.
Irrelevant. While some or even most of the girls may have consented, it is certain that some
did not. One hundred acts of adultry do not justify or invalidate one act of rape.
I think it has been stated here many times by quite a few of the folks that you say
are "cursing a dead man" those that consented do have some responsibility. Has anyone denied
that some were willing?
But, because some of these these women have some resposibility, doesn't mean that VPW is
void of any. As God's alleged Apostle, MOGFOT, or whatever, he has more.
And ... if what he taught them was the cause of their willingness then he bears the vast
majority, if not all of the responsibility.
But now you offer a red herring by errantly portraying this stuff as an issue of feminism
or reverse misogyny? --- You are desperately grasping at straws.
You focus on the willing, many of who were most likely tricked into their willingness, and
ignore those that were unwilling and coerced or even raped - to make it an issue of feminism.
Anything to take the focus off of the source.
This past year there were 2 disturbing headlines in STL. One involved a 46 year old female teacher at a middle school who was accused of, confessed to, and is awaiting sentence for having sexual relations with several boys. The other was about a 42 year old pizza place manager who kidnapped 2 boys, 11 and 13, and basically made sex slaves out of them. The prosecutor in the latter case said that "you'll never see anybody worse than this guy" or something to that affect.
Really? So, a middle school teacher who victimizes adolescent boys is not that bad, but a pizza mgr is? The woman got 2 days worth of headlines and that was it; the pizza guy...well, do a search on Michael Devlin see what comes up. Apparently in today's society women aren't responsible for anything. Must be nice.
How is it that you conclude from the above that: "in today's society women aren't
responsible for anything" ? That's pretty dumb IMO.
I read that the woman is awaiting sentencing, meaning that she was probably
convicted of rape and is going to jail. Both were crimes and both will be punished.
Yet you seem to think (or you are falsely portraying ) that both crimes are equal and
that the woman is somehow getting away with something. -- Absurd.
We're not just defending a man; we're defending what he taught us and how it helped us, and all the evil in the devil's rectum doesn't invalidate that. We're defending Christianity; Christ's sacrifice of himself which God accepted and how the finality of said sacrifice makes us free.
Nope, thats not it all all. I think most of the folks here accept that VPW/TWI's teachings
stand or fall upon their own merit, regardless of his actions. You and a few others refuse
to see that and make up these strawmans, not just to defend VPW actions, or what he
taught, but rather to defend your own (willing) blindness to the truth.
You errantly mistake defending VPW, for defending Christ's sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice doesn't
depend upon anything VPW said or did. You errantly mistake defending the teachings of one
man to defending the Word of God.
You guys aren't free; you're in bondage to a dead man. You foolishly think this pleases God. You got all your scripture, you got all your emotions, you got all your excuses, but you don't have peace. Who do you think you're kidding?
I think that the opposite is most likely true. You are in bondage to the dead man
because of blind and misdirected loyalty - misguided loyalty that is so strong that it
forces you into publicly displayed intellectual dishonesty, intentional misrrepresention
and distorting of facts. -- Intentional misrepresentation of what others are really
saying when what is said shows your beloved teacher to be much less than what he
appeared to be.
Freedom does not depend upon adherence to PFAL or a particular view of VPW.
Neither does bondage follow those that have to courage to tell the truth about VPW ,etc.
Personally, I would think there is much more peace in telling the painful truth than
Irrelevant. While some or even most of the girls may have consented, it is certain that some
did not.
The relevancy lies in whether the first occurrences of VP having sex outside of his marriage came about as a result of certain women seducing him. If that's true then (even though it's not right) VP succumbed to the temptation of the Devil and with that temptation it's very possible that the road he was traveling on became more deviant. Who can say they've never been tricked (seduced) by the Devil? Who can say they might not still be suffering from his seduction in some cases of behavior?
No. But because of most of the women consenting; it facilitated his adultery.
They participated in it, helped it along, encouraged it, gave it wings.
Desiring to "bless the man of God".
They "consented" because they were taught contrary to God's Word, that it was God's will, because it would "bless the man of God." VPW was the source of that false teaching. The adultry was "facillitated" not by their "consent" but by the deception and lusts of VPW - a supposed man of God who taught false doctrine to fulfill his sexual lust and justify adultry.
Had there been no false teaching, and had there been correct teaching, there would have been no "consent".
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
excathedra
i don't understand that comment at all
--
and the discussion about young women and young girls.... i don't understand that either....
when your consent is not involved, you know ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Oldies:
Whether VP had sex with young women or with old women, he shouldn't have.
Even if some of them consented, he shouldn't have. He wasn't an Old Testament king; he was a minister. There was no kinddom, and the women did not belong to him. Period.
Whether the young women were stone-cold sober or drunk on their butts, he shouldn't have.
There is nothing in the Bible, nothing, that justifies that behavior. I understand the temptation. I even comprehend how someone could succumb to it, but that doesn't make it right.
I'd like to hear some guy who slipped Ecstasy in a girl's drink in a bar and got caught tell the judge, "Hey, I was just trying to loosen her up sexually." Can you imagine what the judge would say?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
dear gentlemen posters
i was born in 1956. i forget when dr. wierwille was born
what age are you now, fellows ?
would you ever think of harming a teenage girl (18-19) young woman / lady / girl ? i don't think so
and i don't believe you would use being a "father" (in the word) as an excuse
love,ex
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BURFORD
Oldiesman, could you please reply to Goey's posts # 283 and #297?
I for one would like to see how "all" men are sexually predatory in nature.
Goey, I hope you do not mind me using your responses, but you articulated your responses much better than I could. If that is an issue, I'll knock it off, and post my own thoughts.
Awaiting your reponse oldiesman
Thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
ExC
I had the fun of working at the LSU Football game this weekend
in the student section. Their were more drunk girls than I knew lived on this earth.
I helped a few get medical attention. They wouldn't of know what I did to them.
I thought I was saving there lives.
Sex? No. I was born in 55.
Would be a sad day to see such a pervert do something like that.
I do not know if I would have self restraint not to harm them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
excath.
In response to your question:
I am 57 years old.
Do I ever see a lady in my age bracket and think "Wowzer!!!"?
Of course.
That's hardly the same thing as practicing predatory behavior to violate young women.
Hey! women do it too.( The "Wowzer!!!" thing, that is.)
Do I think about harming teenage girls?
To tell you the truth, it's hard to look at a lady under 30 or 35 and not think, "Hey, that could be my daughter or granddaughter."
Of course, that in itself is kinda weird since I have only male progeny.
OK, all kidding aside, It is natural for a man to see an attractive lady and feel a sense of arousal.
That's a far cry from what is being promoted as "typical" or "normal" ( Or worse yet, "excusable") by some who post here.
For whatever it's worth, that's my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Ex, I'm 52 and no I would never think of harming a young (or old) woman (in a sexual or otherwise way). Well, I have thought about spanking my grand-daughter. Does that count? ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Wierwille was 51......when he filmed pfal in 1967.
Wierwille was 60......when PFAL '77 occurred.
Any young women that wierwille drugged and raped from 1978-1982........ :blink: :blink:
And......why do some vpw-defenders have to go back to the old testament and make comparison with solomon? Talk about a stretch of illogic..?? Try keeping it in perspective......the guy should have received serious jail time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Thanks Skyrider. I was being conservative on purpose because I didn't know the exact numbers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
I understand......I just wanted to be specific, because it dispels little doubt (to most) that wierwille was a sick, narcisstic, perverted old man who preyed on "his cult followers."
Also......Oldies, Johniam, WTH and other docvic-defenders cannot squelch wierwille's atrocities and perversions, nor can they understand this evil contempt against God, His son, and the children of light. Thus, they are deceived and deceiving others of the wierwillian idolatry that ensnares twi to this day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Obviously it ensnares you, too. You're going to spend every day of the rest of your lives cursing a dead man. Glad it's you and not me.
The truth is that most of those girls consented. But because they're girls they're not responsible for ANYTHING, right? You've come a long way, baby. <_<
This past year there were 2 disturbing headlines in STL. One involved a 46 year old female teacher at a middle school who was accused of, confessed to, and is awaiting sentence for having sexual relations with several boys. The other was about a 42 year old pizza place manager who kidnapped 2 boys, 11 and 13, and basically made sex slaves out of them. The prosecutor in the latter case said that "you'll never see anybody worse than this guy" or something to that affect.
Really? So, a middle school teacher who victimizes adolescent boys is not that bad, but a pizza mgr is? The woman got 2 days worth of headlines and that was it; the pizza guy...well, do a search on Michael Devlin see what comes up. Apparently in today's society women aren't responsible for anything. Must be nice.
We're not just defending a man; we're defending what he taught us and how it helped us, and all the evil in the devil's rectum doesn't invalidate that. We're defending Christianity; Christ's sacrifice of himself which God accepted and how the finality of said sacrifice makes us free.
You guys aren't free; you're in bondage to a dead man. You foolishly think this pleases God. You got all your scripture, you got all your emotions, you got all your excuses, but you don't have peace. Who do you think you're kidding?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
No, I actually spend little time thinking about that dead man. I don't curse him at all. I do say that what he did was wrong.
And you would know this... HOW?First you said that these young women were mature adult females. Now you say they consented. Did you interview all of them? If they consented, then the drugs wouldn't have been necessary, would they?
I already stated that I felt sure that there were women who consented. BUT - geez John!...I'm gonna assume you're a 50-something guy. If a 19 year old came and threw herself at you would you just go along for the ride?
That middle school teacher is just as wrong as that man in that they are both having sex with minors. The man is seen as "more wrong" because he kidnapped the boys and made sex slaves out of them.
You're not defending Christianity at all. What you were taught has nothing to do with the heinous actions of that man. You know, there is a reason why there are warnings in the Epistles for leaders to not lead people astray. God set a standard. vp didn't meet it.
You and your wife come here and make fun of posters for spelling and grammatical errors. How loving and kind can that be? Let's see... if that's what YOU got from your Father in the Word, then I rest my case.
Who do you think you're kidding? You think you're pleasing God?
You're beholden to a dead, narcissistic pervert. You're still serving him nearly 20 years after his death. Protecting him. Helping to pass on his excuses for why he just had to do what he did.
All the women belonged to him anyway...
He was over-sexed...
The girls wanted it...
The devil made him do it...
Go ahead and tell everyone here just how vp was pleasing God when he drugged and raped even ONE girl.
You overestimate yourself if you think you're qualified to judge how peaceful another person is.
You want to protect a memory? Fine. Don't fault the rest of us for wanting to keep that memory in perspective.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I believe that too.
What I was taught in all my time in twi has nothing to do with heinous actions of Wierwille or anyone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
O I believe that what we were taught in the way int. opened the doors for those acts of selfishness and crime.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
For all those who throw out the red herring that some of the women or girls consented: did Mrs. Wierwille consent to it? Did God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
NO.........the truth is wierwille used his cult-status, his authoritarian position, his inner circle yes-men, his motorcoach, his liquor cabinet, AND/OR drugs to advance his sexual predation.
Rev. Billy Graham was a spiritual giant compared to the little piker, wierwille.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
No. But because of most of the women consenting; it facilitated his adultery.
They participated in it, helped it along, encouraged it, gave it wings.
Desiring to "bless the man of God".
Mrs. Wierwille --- I suppose she could have blasted the whole thing wide open; don't know why she didn't other than remaining silent for the sake of the entire ministry staying afloat.
I'd bet my last dollar that she believed the ministry was of God and didn't want the ministry to be blamed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
That's nice but you . . .
. . . should have stopped right here. Even though I'm sure you didn't mean to -- everything else you wrote comes across as a feeble attempt to rationalize what you said. When I first read your "apology" I had to make a choice -- Seeing as how Dooj did apologize should I ignore her attempts at rationalization? I decided (obviously) that although it's admirable of you to do what I doubted you would I'm disappointed that you found it necessary to say anything other than: "I'm sorry Oldies. It was wrong of me to infer that you were a pedophile. Please forgive me."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I'll take that bet! Although it's possible that you're right -- possible -- I think she really did have a heart for the ministry. Many people choose to stay (as long as they did) for the same reason. I did but, eventually gave up the "fight". Some continued on because they thought the "fight" was worth it. And then some I've talked to told me: "Larry, where else is there to go? I just want to serve the Lord. You're not going to find a perfect church."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
OM... again with these statements! WTF?
MOST? ...you keep on saying this where in the heck do you get MOST?
True, there were SOME that were facilitater's and enabler's through intimidation and/or coercion... who used their positions as well as the trust that others had in not only veepee but in them as well to convince and ensnare others... and those they could not convince, they drugged.
but MOST???
And again, REGARDLESS of the 'situation'... REGARDLESS!!! veepee should have "kept it in his pants"!!!
He was married. He was their minister. He was their teacher.
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Hmmm, I haven't noticed anyone actually curse VPW. Has anyone really cursed VPW?.
This seems like one of the more typical responses that comes from the VPW defenders.
Where telling the facts is portrayed as cursing. Where calling a spade a spade is cursing.
Where few hours a week on this board, discussing VPW/TWI etc is portrayed as "cursing a
dead man for the rest of your life".
Irrelevant. While some or even most of the girls may have consented, it is certain that some
did not. One hundred acts of adultry do not justify or invalidate one act of rape.
I think it has been stated here many times by quite a few of the folks that you say
are "cursing a dead man" those that consented do have some responsibility. Has anyone denied
that some were willing?
But, because some of these these women have some resposibility, doesn't mean that VPW is
void of any. As God's alleged Apostle, MOGFOT, or whatever, he has more.
And ... if what he taught them was the cause of their willingness then he bears the vast
majority, if not all of the responsibility.
But now you offer a red herring by errantly portraying this stuff as an issue of feminism
or reverse misogyny? --- You are desperately grasping at straws.
You focus on the willing, many of who were most likely tricked into their willingness, and
ignore those that were unwilling and coerced or even raped - to make it an issue of feminism.
Anything to take the focus off of the source.
How is it that you conclude from the above that: "in today's society women aren't
responsible for anything" ? That's pretty dumb IMO.
I read that the woman is awaiting sentencing, meaning that she was probably
convicted of rape and is going to jail. Both were crimes and both will be punished.
Yet you seem to think (or you are falsely portraying ) that both crimes are equal and
that the woman is somehow getting away with something. -- Absurd.
Nope, thats not it all all. I think most of the folks here accept that VPW/TWI's teachings
stand or fall upon their own merit, regardless of his actions. You and a few others refuse
to see that and make up these strawmans, not just to defend VPW actions, or what he
taught, but rather to defend your own (willing) blindness to the truth.
You errantly mistake defending VPW, for defending Christ's sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice doesn't
depend upon anything VPW said or did. You errantly mistake defending the teachings of one
man to defending the Word of God.
I think that the opposite is most likely true. You are in bondage to the dead man
because of blind and misdirected loyalty - misguided loyalty that is so strong that it
forces you into publicly displayed intellectual dishonesty, intentional misrrepresention
and distorting of facts. -- Intentional misrepresentation of what others are really
saying when what is said shows your beloved teacher to be much less than what he
appeared to be.
Freedom does not depend upon adherence to PFAL or a particular view of VPW.
Neither does bondage follow those that have to courage to tell the truth about VPW ,etc.
Personally, I would think there is much more peace in telling the painful truth than
there is in defending the liar and the lies.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
The relevancy lies in whether the first occurrences of VP having sex outside of his marriage came about as a result of certain women seducing him. If that's true then (even though it's not right) VP succumbed to the temptation of the Devil and with that temptation it's very possible that the road he was traveling on became more deviant. Who can say they've never been tricked (seduced) by the Devil? Who can say they might not still be suffering from his seduction in some cases of behavior?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
They "consented" because they were taught contrary to God's Word, that it was God's will, because it would "bless the man of God." VPW was the source of that false teaching. The adultry was "facillitated" not by their "consent" but by the deception and lusts of VPW - a supposed man of God who taught false doctrine to fulfill his sexual lust and justify adultry.
Had there been no false teaching, and had there been correct teaching, there would have been no "consent".
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.