T Bone said:From my 12 years of involvement with TWI and from the preponderance of anecdotal evidence from many others I know beyond a reasonable doubt thatwierwilledid not like to be challenged.
So true. At the advance class I attended VPW made it available for anyone to submit questions they might have and he would answer them. Everyone of the submissions was treated as challenge and threat to VPW’s research. He responded he was hurt so much by people challenging him. Of course, the boot lickers quickly came to his defense and thanked him so much for all his hard work, and assured him all his rsearch was truly appreciated.
Wow. Just... wow...
Teachers who are apt (skilled) to teach are unafraid of questions.
The narcissist and the huckster HATE questions. Their biggest fear is being found out for the frauds that they are.
The bathwater needs to be thrown out because it has been contaminated by the rotting corpse of a dead baby. Some want to hold on to the corpse. I say, let them. But get that rot out of my bathtub!
quote: oh, and almost forgot – speaking of the divinity of Jesus Christ – why don’t you man up and reply to at least a few of my posts on the threadyou startedindoctrinal forum-The Trinity - asset or liability?– I’ll make it real easy for you – here is my last postT-Bone's post Nov 6th 2022, 9:41 PM on the Trinity, theology, the nature of God. Please respond in a timely manner… unless you prefer to remain the waterboy for a dead cult-leader, providing refreshments for wierwille’s fanbase.
First, you must understand it is easy for me to read seemingly endless posts of slander, if not devoid of substance, and it's easy for me to conclude that enough is enough and I'm not reading any more of this crap. However, I did start that thread, and if you really wanted a response to something I was going to try to accommodate you. But, you want me to respond in a timely manner, yet, it would be impossible to even read those posts in a timely manner. My strategy is simple, like the cliche, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The word of God, as taught by VP, for the most part, ain't broke. I believe that so called 'cult awareness' is socially acceptable bigotry which does more harm than good. It encourages people to get in panic mode and throw out the baby with the bath water. I refuse to share that with you and your ilk.
Got it. Too busy hiding your head in the sand and claim there’s no substance - that’s funny - I’m not the one referring to movies like The Omen franchise. Guess you had to be on the Trinity thread to get that joke. (Cue the 2 Muppet old farts in the balcony “but you weren’t there” …oh fearless thread-starter lacking a response of substance).
At least you admit you’re totally fooled by wierwille’s con game. Cheers
You should be commended for sticking by a delusional cult-leader’s broken latrine. 4 crucified? Oh nothing wrong with that.
Scripture interprets itself ? Oh yeah sure
As long as you love God and neighbor you can do whatever you want? Man, if that isn’t convenient I don’t know what is.
What a handy religion - rub the law of believing lamp and god MUST accommodate you. Who doesn’t want that?
Thanks for not hiding the fact that you accept wierwille’s word of god. You know some Mormons are sneaky and don’t come right out and say they’ve got their own scriptures - funny those golden plates up and disappeared…at least wierwille got a real diploma from a non accredited seminary - I mean it was manifested in the senses realm - and everyone HAD TO call him “Doctor” …oh while we’re sorting out the baloney of the phony who was the 7th in line of something or other ? Oh speaking of substance - what’s with that 1942 promise - do you still believe that ? Why?
If one doesn’t see that wierwille’s port-a-potty is broken then don’t worry about fixing it. That explains a lot. What’s puzzling is why wierwille-fans think his bull-$hit doesn’t stink.
The bathwater needs to be thrown out because it has been contaminated by the rotting corpse of a dead baby. Some want to hold on to the corpse. I say, let them. But get that rot out of my bathtub!
quote: oh, and almost forgot – speaking of the divinity of Jesus Christ – why don’t you man up and reply to at least a few of my posts on the threadyou startedindoctrinal forum-The Trinity - asset or liability?– I’ll make it real easy for you – here is my last postT-Bone's post Nov 6th 2022, 9:41 PM on the Trinity, theology, the nature of God. Please respond in a timely manner… unless you prefer to remain the waterboy for a dead cult-leader, providing refreshments for wierwille’s fanbase.
First, you must understand it is easy for me to read seemingly endless posts of slander, if not devoid of substance, and it's easy for me to conclude that enough is enough and I'm not reading any more of this crap. However, I did start that thread, and if you really wanted a response to something I was going to try to accommodate you. But, you want me to respond in a timely manner, yet, it would be impossible to even read those posts in a timely manner.
Slander: the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
Defamation - Wikipedia - Defamation is the act of communicating to a third party false statements about a person, place or thing that results in damage to its reputation. It can be spoken (slander) or written (libel). It constitutes a tort or a crime. The legal definition of defamation and related acts as well as the ways they are dealt with can vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions (what exactly they must consist of, whether they constitute crimes or not, to what extent proving the alleged facts is a valid defense).
~ ~ ~ ~
I am curious as to what “seemingly endless posts of slander” you were referring to.
Are you referring to untrue statements that misrepresented YOU , wierwilleor both?
That thread is in the doctrinal forum – I referenced a lot of Scripture and other legitimate sources that successfully destroyed your rant against the Trinity…you said:
“What about the devil?...He is no longer free. Prior to the day of Pentecost, he wanted God's people to believe that Jesus was evil. Since the day of Pentecost, he NOW wants God's people to believe that Jesus is God. Why would he change like that? He did a 180. He looks fickle. What's going on???... Once again, the trinity is both the welcoming committee and the public relations machine for the antichrist. It is a perpetual reminder that..."haleluia, the antichrist is coming". No Christian should want anything to do with supporting something like that…God's love is perpetual. God gave every one the same capacity to make our own choices. God will never force anyone to choose, believe, or do anything. If any still want to believe that a man is God, enjoy it while you can.”
This all appears to be conjecture fueled by confirmations bias
I am sympathetic to your complaint about all my posts - so I'll repost some stuff here on that thread and hopefully you can respond in a timely manner hoping to hear from you soon over there
My strategy is simple, like the cliche, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The word of God, as taught by VP, for the most part, ain't broke. I believe that so called 'cult awareness' is socially acceptable bigotry which does more harm than good.
"The word of God, as taught by VP" - for a proper treatment this needs a whole thread devoted to delineating specific topics he taught…otherwiseYOU are bluffing and either don’t know what to say or YOU ARE AFRAID‘truth’ won’t hold up to close scrutiny.
On 2/25/2023 at 6:58 PM, johniam said:
It encourages people to get in panic mode and throw out the baby with the bath water. I refuse to share that with you and your ilk.
To have an intelligible discussion we need to define what is the baby and what is the bath water. I know it means discard something useful, essential, or important because you want to get rid of something undesired or negative; to lose valuable ideas or aspects because you want to get rid of certain things you don’t want. From Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater, don’t | Idioms Online …In light of that – there will undoubtedly be differences. What I think is essential, someone else might not think so…It seems you andMikelike to overcomplicate the Socratic process. For example I might say exploring Scripture is essential to unpacking the threefold relationship of Father/Son/Holy Spirit. And the essentials I hear from you guys is a bunch of rehashed rhetoric from wierwille’s ‘catechism’ JCING.
I don’t mean to be a pill about it but on your Trinity thread my posts were crammed with substance - i.e. Scripture and the history of the theological development of the Trinity – AND MY MAIN POINTin most of my posts was to prove wierwille and his fan clubmisrepresented the doctrine of the Trinity to the point of trivializing and lampooning the nature of the Godhead. And I have been upfront and honest in expressing my own view – - which could be screwy anyway -- which is that God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son are NOT identical and that there are many Scriptures that allude to the interrelationship of the Father, the So ad the Holy Spirit. And perhaps there are no passages more insistent about their threefold interaction than John 14 , John 15 , and John 16 . Am I saying they clearly address wierwille’s myopic view of the Trinity? No. I’m saying those chapters of John indicate an interagency of all three. For me “Trinity” enumerates there’s three supernatural beings involved. From what I understand in the Bible, they have some common features but they’re not identical to each other – since even their names or titles suggest individuality in the ‘team effort’. Scripture has always indicated the Father is the source - - all flows from Him – and ultimately all will be subsumed in Him –
24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.26The last enemy to be destroyed is death.27For he “has put everything under his feet.”cNow when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all…1 Corinthians 15
~ ~ ~ ~
Can a person misrepresent themself?
Yes – that’s the main idea of hypocrisy - Matthew 23
Can a preacher or a teacher misrepresent the gospel of Jesus Christ?
I wonder how you would feel about wierwille or LCM sexually molesting a woman that you know, or maybe a girl you had witnessed to and under-shepherded her all the way up until she went into the way corps program…How does one reconcile the public persona of the president ofThe Way Internationalwith the same person being a sexual predator? Here’s another reading assignment - Losing the Way: A Memoir of Spiritual Longing, Manipulation, Abuse, and Escape by Kristen Skedgell .
I wonder how you and your wife would feel about being at a ‘pajama party’ along with your 16-year-old daughter and wierwille is showing everyone a porn video. He invites your 16-year-old daughter up front and shows her a ‘pornographic pen’ (which wierwille describes to everyone there as a little silhouette of a guy humping a girl when you tilt the pen back and forth).
Do you think wierwille misrepresented himself as a man of God?
Do you think it’s okay for a minister of the gospel to sexually molest women?
quote: First, you must understand it is easy for me to readseemingly endless posts of slander, if not devoid of substance, and it's easy for me to conclude that enough is enough and I'm not reading any more of this crap.
I've read it more than 10 years ago. Still have a copy of it. As I said previously, God gave all of us the same capacity to make our own choices. Even if you are coerced or bullied into making any choice, it's still YOUR choice. I was very marginally acquainted with Kris. I saw her teach the word in front of 1,000 people during the year she was in St. Louis. The following year I moved to St. Louis and lived with 2 guys who had been under her leadership. They had nothing but good to say about her. They said she was tough. Pretty much everybody I have talked to about her said the same. According to the book, it was not long after she left St. Louis when she had her first encounter with VP. Her tone was not as venemous as GSC, yet she came across as a woman scorned. She knew VP was married and she had freedom of choice above and beyond that, yet she chose, coerced or not, to comply.
quote:I wonder how you and your wife would feel about being at a ‘pajama party’ along with your 16-year-old daughter and wierwille is showing everyone a porn video. He invites your 16-year-old daughter up front and shows her a ‘pornographic pen’ (which wierwille describes to everyone there as a little silhouette of a guy humping a girl when you tilt the pen back and forth).
Do you think wierwille misrepresented himself as a man of God?
Do you think it’s okay for a minister of the gospel to sexually molest women?
None of this crap has been proven in a court of law, nor ever will be. Therefore, it IS slander. The word of God stands. No human sin negates or deletes this. Not Adam's, not VPs. There is no love or peace in thinking evil continually every time you think about VP or anybody else.
Do you think wierwille misrepresented himself as a man of God?
Do you think it’s okay for a minister of the gospel to sexually molest women?
Point 1.) He undeniably misrepresented himself as a man of God when he willingly plagiarized other authors and hid it. And further when he fabricated the "snow on the gas pumps" story. This is not slander, it's a statement of fact.
Point 2.) In Ohio, where Way Hq is located, if a clergyman uses his status to engage in sexual activity with a parishioner it's considered rape. This also is not slander, just a simple statement of fact.
It doesn't require being proven in a court of law before it becomes true.
I've read it more than 10 years ago. Still have a copy of it. As I said previously, God gave all of us the same capacity to make our own choices. Even if you are coerced or bullied into making any choice, it's still YOUR choice. I was very marginally acquainted with Kris. I saw her teach the word in front of 1,000 people during the year she was in St. Louis. The following year I moved to St. Louis and lived with 2 guys who had been under her leadership. They had nothing but good to say about her. They said she was tough. Pretty much everybody I have talked to about her said the same. According to the book, it was not long after she left St. Louis when she had her first encounter with VP. Her tone was not as venemous as GSC, yet she came across as a woman scorned. She knew VP was married and she had freedom of choice above and beyond that, yet she chose, coerced or not, to comply.
quote:I wonder how you and your wife would feel about being at a ‘pajama party’ along with your 16-year-old daughter and wierwille is showing everyone a porn video. He invites your 16-year-old daughter up front and shows her a ‘pornographic pen’ (which wierwille describes to everyone there as a little silhouette of a guy humping a girl when you tilt the pen back and forth).
Do you think wierwille misrepresented himself as a man of God?
Do you think it’s okay for a minister of the gospel to sexually molest women?
None of this crap has been proven in a court of law, nor ever will be. Therefore, it IS slander. The word of God stands. No human sin negates or deletes this. Not Adam's, not VPs. There is no love or peace in thinking evil continually every time you think about VP or anybody else.
For review:
Slander is the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation.
a false and defamatory oral statement about a person…Note there is nothing in the definition about a court of law. A court of law may use that definition in a court case. Maybe you forget the court case of LCM vs the Allens…you can look it up – on main GSC page I think.
Every scenario I mentioned in my post are true and represent what actually happened – from eyewitness / victim’s testimony…I was at that pajama party in Rome City – Family corps and teens present – so roughly a few hundred witnesses – and I saw wierwille invite up front my friend’s 16-year-old daughter.
Even if you are coerced or bullied into making any choice, it's still YOUR choice. She knew VP was married and she had freedom of choice above and beyond that, yet she chose, coerced or not, to comply.
Comply? Coerced or not, she chose? Strange word choices. I don't think you understand the meanings of the words you write.
A woman gets severely beaten because she didn't comply with her rapist. If only she free will chose to comply, she would only have been raped but not beaten.
A man's First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were trampled on and violated by a law enforcement officer. The man was beaten and arrested for exercising his Constitutional rights. He was guilty of nothing but noncompliance. Even though the man committed no crime, if he had free will chosen to comply with the illegal directives of the LEO, he wouldn't have been beaten and imprisoned.
If only Ukraine complied.... but they didn't. They free will chose death and destruction and rape. Hey! They're tough, they make their own choices.
Slander is the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation.
a false and defamatory oral statement about a person…Note there is nothing in the definition about a court of law. A court of law may use that definition in a court case.
And then there's the question of burden of proof. Hypothetical: person 1 makes a statement about person 2. Person 2 believes the statement is false and harmful to him (person 2) and sues person 1.
Who has the burden of proof? Who has to prove what?
...and then there is the issue of proving actual malice.
It sounds like you imply it's up to the plaintiff to prove malice.
I would suggest if, in the jurisdiction (state) in which the legal action (lawsuit) is brought has a law subject to civil actions which requires proof of actual malice. That might be every US state, I don't know but it's likely.
So then, is it up to the plaintiff or defendant to prove the statement at issue is false?
Who is "you?" The plaintiff, right? T-Bone's definition (as quoted) I don't think mentions malicious intent. But some or all state laws do.
I felt it was necessary to give the dictionary definition of slander because CERTAIN PEOPLElike to redefine words and misconstrue valid criticism of wierwille…that’s it – plain and simple.
Both libel and slander are forms of defamation, but libel is found in print, and slander is found in speech. Libel refers to a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression, whereas slander refers to a false spoken statement that is made to cause people to have a bad opinion of someone.
It should be noted that many people, especially when they are not writing a legal brief, or arguing in a court of law, do not distinguish between these two words, placing them both in the general semantic category of "saying or writing something untrue about someone, in order to make them look bad." However, there is a very clear difference between them.
I felt it was necessary to give the dictionary definition of slander because CERTAIN PEOPLElike to redefine words and misconstrue valid criticism of wierwille…that’s it – plain and simple.
Both libel and slander are forms of defamation, but libel is found in print, and slander is found in speech. Libel refers to a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression, whereas slander refers to a false spoken statement that is made to cause people to have a bad opinion of someone.
It should be noted that many people, especially when they are not writing a legal brief, or arguing in a court of law, do not distinguish between these two words, placing them both in the general semantic category of "saying or writing something untrue about someone, in order to make them look bad." However, there is a very clear difference between them.
To me, it is/was no problem for you to have published the quoted definition.
I found no fault in what you posted. I simply got more specific. I hope you do not find that to be a problem.
No problem at all – I said that for the benefit of those who like to use diversionary tactics(like referencing a court of law) as a distraction to avoid discussing the hypocrisy of wierwille and LCM. We cool
As for the trinity, the devil is laughing (rotflmaopimp) at mainstream Christianity just like Hogan's Heroes laugh at Klink and Schultz. Christ led captivity (the devil) captive, right? God's people are supposed to have Acts 19:20 impact (so mightily grew the word of God and prevailed), not Jude 3 impact (...earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints). But the devil deceives the whole world. He's laughing at you too. VP is DEAD. He is out of your control. At the gathering together, he will be rewarded for ANYTHING he's done that pleased God, and he will not be rewarded for anything he's done that did not please God. It's simple.
A talebearer is a liar. The devil is the father of lies. Every time you repeat all that crap, you parrot the father of lies. I don't care how factual you think it is, your human pov doesn't even come close to God's eternal perspective. God planned our salvation availability when we were dead in trespasses and sins. You obsessively repeat one man's sins ad nauseum. Do you realize how self righteous and retarded that is?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
33
23
33
32
Popular Days
Mar 4
30
Mar 1
24
Mar 3
14
Feb 19
13
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 33 posts
johniam 23 posts
T-Bone 33 posts
Nathan_Jr 32 posts
Popular Days
Mar 4 2023
30 posts
Mar 1 2023
24 posts
Mar 3 2023
14 posts
Feb 19 2022
13 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
Oh yeah – you nailed it Bolshevik! An alarming aspect of TWI-follower’s/big PFAL-fans’ fascination with demonology is the amount of control it affords cult-leaders. They elevate consequen
Twinky
Good lord, is that Craig? His vaunted golden hair has slipped down to his chin, and gone grey? Still got the scowl, though.
BecomingMe
Hi, friends! Sorry I'm late to the party. I step in and out of cult world, because it's just too heavy sometimes. I'm Craig's oldest kid and wanted to jump on this thread to help out if I can...
Posted Images
Nathan_Jr
Wow. Just... wow...
Teachers who are apt (skilled) to teach are unafraid of questions.
The narcissist and the huckster HATE questions. Their biggest fear is being found out for the frauds that they are.
The bathwater needs to be thrown out because it has been contaminated by the rotting corpse of a dead baby. Some want to hold on to the corpse. I say, let them. But get that rot out of my bathtub!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Got it. Too busy hiding your head in the sand and claim there’s no substance - that’s funny - I’m not the one referring to movies like The Omen franchise. Guess you had to be on the Trinity thread to get that joke. (Cue the 2 Muppet old farts in the balcony “but you weren’t there”
…oh fearless thread-starter lacking a response of substance).
At least you admit you’re totally fooled by wierwille’s con game. Cheers
You should be commended for sticking by a delusional cult-leader’s broken latrine. 4 crucified? Oh nothing wrong with that.
Scripture interprets itself ? Oh yeah sure
As long as you love God and neighbor you can do whatever you want? Man, if that isn’t convenient I don’t know what is.
What a handy religion - rub the law of believing lamp and god MUST accommodate you. Who doesn’t want that?
Thanks for not hiding the fact that you accept wierwille’s word of god. You know some Mormons are sneaky and don’t come right out and say they’ve got their own scriptures - funny those golden plates up and disappeared…at least wierwille got a real diploma from a non accredited seminary - I mean it was manifested in the senses realm - and everyone HAD TO call him “Doctor” …oh while we’re sorting out the baloney of the phony who was the 7th in line of something or other ? Oh speaking of substance - what’s with that 1942 promise - do you still believe that ? Why?
If one doesn’t see that wierwille’s port-a-potty is broken then don’t worry about fixing it. That explains a lot. What’s puzzling is why wierwille-fans think his bull-$hit doesn’t stink.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
WOW! Of course, you hit the bull's eye.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Its so far off the Word of God that it isn't the Word of God. It's the word of VP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
In your opinion, what parts, as taught by VP, would you say "ain't broke"?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I'll make another shortcut for yah to reply
here tis' T-Bone's reply on your Trinity thread Sunday February 26th 2023
Slander: the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
Defamation - Wikipedia - Defamation is the act of communicating to a third party false statements about a person, place or thing that results in damage to its reputation. It can be spoken (slander) or written (libel). It constitutes a tort or a crime. The legal definition of defamation and related acts as well as the ways they are dealt with can vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions (what exactly they must consist of, whether they constitute crimes or not, to what extent proving the alleged facts is a valid defense).
~ ~ ~ ~
I am curious as to what “seemingly endless posts of slander” you were referring to.
Are you referring to untrue statements that misrepresented YOU , wierwille or both?
Could you please be more specific.
How did I falsify anything you said?
After your starter post the only thing you mentioned of substance (if you want to call it substantive ) was a reference to the Omen > johniam post July 17th 2022 4:31 AM mentioning the Omen …you brought it up.
That thread is in the doctrinal forum – I referenced a lot of Scripture and other legitimate sources that successfully destroyed your rant against the Trinity…you said:
“What about the devil?...He is no longer free. Prior to the day of Pentecost, he wanted God's people to believe that Jesus was evil. Since the day of Pentecost, he NOW wants God's people to believe that Jesus is God. Why would he change like that? He did a 180. He looks fickle. What's going on???... Once again, the trinity is both the welcoming committee and the public relations machine for the antichrist. It is a perpetual reminder that..."haleluia, the antichrist is coming". No Christian should want anything to do with supporting something like that…God's love is perpetual. God gave every one the same capacity to make our own choices. God will never force anyone to choose, believe, or do anything. If any still want to believe that a man is God, enjoy it while you can.”
johniam's starter post on Trinity: asset or liability; June 18th 2022 1:01 PM
This all appears to be conjecture fueled by confirmations bias
I am sympathetic to your complaint about all my posts - so I'll repost some stuff here on that thread and hopefully you can respond in a timely manner
hoping to hear from you soon over there 
uhm... in case you missed it above here it is again T-Bone's reply on your Trinity thread Sunday February 26th 2023 all hail redundancy !!!!!
"The word of God, as taught by VP" - for a proper treatment this needs a whole thread devoted to delineating specific topics he taught…otherwise YOU are bluffing and either don’t know what to say or YOU ARE AFRAID ‘truth’ won’t hold up to close scrutiny.
To have an intelligible discussion we need to define what is the baby and what is the bath water. I know it means discard something useful, essential, or important because you want to get rid of something undesired or negative; to lose valuable ideas or aspects because you want to get rid of certain things you don’t want. From Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater, don’t | Idioms Online …In light of that – there will undoubtedly be differences. What I think is essential, someone else might not think so…It seems you and Mike like to overcomplicate the Socratic process. For example I might say exploring Scripture is essential to unpacking the threefold relationship of Father/Son/Holy Spirit. And the essentials I hear from you guys is a bunch of rehashed rhetoric from wierwille’s ‘catechism’ JCING.
I don’t mean to be a pill about it but on your Trinity thread my posts were crammed with substance - i.e. Scripture and the history of the theological development of the Trinity – AND MY MAIN POINT in most of my posts was to prove wierwille and his fan club misrepresented the doctrine of the Trinity to the point of trivializing and lampooning the nature of the Godhead. And I have been upfront and honest in expressing my own view – - which could be screwy anyway - - which is that God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son are NOT identical and that there are many Scriptures that allude to the interrelationship of the Father, the So ad the Holy Spirit. And perhaps there are no passages more insistent about their threefold interaction than John 14 , John 15 , and John 16 . Am I saying they clearly address wierwille’s myopic view of the Trinity? No. I’m saying those chapters of John indicate an interagency of all three. For me “Trinity” enumerates there’s three supernatural beings involved. From what I understand in the Bible, they have some common features but they’re not identical to each other – since even their names or titles suggest individuality in the ‘team effort’. Scripture has always indicated the Father is the source - - all flows from Him – and ultimately all will be subsumed in Him –
24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” c Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all…1 Corinthians 15
~ ~ ~ ~
Can a person misrepresent themself?
Yes – that’s the main idea of hypocrisy - Matthew 23
Can a preacher or a teacher misrepresent the gospel of Jesus Christ?
Yes – that’s obvious from passages like Matthew 24 , Romans 16:17 - 19 , II Corinthians 11 , II Timothy 3 , Titus 1, II Peter 2 .
~ ~ ~ ~
I wonder how you would feel about wierwille or LCM sexually molesting a woman that you know, or maybe a girl you had witnessed to and under-shepherded her all the way up until she went into the way corps program…How does one reconcile the public persona of the president of The Way International with the same person being a sexual predator? Here’s another reading assignment - Losing the Way: A Memoir of Spiritual Longing, Manipulation, Abuse, and Escape by Kristen Skedgell .
I wonder how you and your wife would feel about being at a ‘pajama party’ along with your 16-year-old daughter and wierwille is showing everyone a porn video. He invites your 16-year-old daughter up front and shows her a ‘pornographic pen’ (which wierwille describes to everyone there as a little silhouette of a guy humping a girl when you tilt the pen back and forth).
Do you think wierwille misrepresented himself as a man of God?
Do you think it’s okay for a minister of the gospel to sexually molest women?
Edited by T-Boneadded special effects
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: First, you must understand it is easy for me to read seemingly endless posts of slander, if not devoid of substance, and it's easy for me to conclude that enough is enough and I'm not reading any more of this crap.
I rest my case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
If it's true, is it slander?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Here’s another reading assignment - Losing the Way: A Memoir of Spiritual Longing, Manipulation, Abuse, and Escape by Kristen Skedgell .
I've read it more than 10 years ago. Still have a copy of it. As I said previously, God gave all of us the same capacity to make our own choices. Even if you are coerced or bullied into making any choice, it's still YOUR choice. I was very marginally acquainted with Kris. I saw her teach the word in front of 1,000 people during the year she was in St. Louis. The following year I moved to St. Louis and lived with 2 guys who had been under her leadership. They had nothing but good to say about her. They said she was tough. Pretty much everybody I have talked to about her said the same. According to the book, it was not long after she left St. Louis when she had her first encounter with VP. Her tone was not as venemous as GSC, yet she came across as a woman scorned. She knew VP was married and she had freedom of choice above and beyond that, yet she chose, coerced or not, to comply.
quote:I wonder how you and your wife would feel about being at a ‘pajama party’ along with your 16-year-old daughter and wierwille is showing everyone a porn video. He invites your 16-year-old daughter up front and shows her a ‘pornographic pen’ (which wierwille describes to everyone there as a little silhouette of a guy humping a girl when you tilt the pen back and forth).
Do you think wierwille misrepresented himself as a man of God?
Do you think it’s okay for a minister of the gospel to sexually molest women?
None of this crap has been proven in a court of law, nor ever will be. Therefore, it IS slander. The word of God stands. No human sin negates or deletes this. Not Adam's, not VPs. There is no love or peace in thinking evil continually every time you think about VP or anybody else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Point 1.) He undeniably misrepresented himself as a man of God when he willingly plagiarized other authors and hid it. And further when he fabricated the "snow on the gas pumps" story. This is not slander, it's a statement of fact.
Point 2.) In Ohio, where Way Hq is located, if a clergyman uses his status to engage in sexual activity with a parishioner it's considered rape. This also is not slander, just a simple statement of fact.
It doesn't require being proven in a court of law before it becomes true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
For review:
Slander is the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation.
a false and defamatory oral statement about a person…Note there is nothing in the definition about a court of law. A court of law may use that definition in a court case. Maybe you forget the court case of LCM vs the Allens…you can look it up – on main GSC page I think.
Every scenario I mentioned in my post are true and represent what actually happened – from eyewitness / victim’s testimony…I was at that pajama party in Rome City – Family corps and teens present – so roughly a few hundred witnesses – and I saw wierwille invite up front my friend’s 16-year-old daughter.
God forbid wierwille's hypocrisy is exposed
guess you're cool with wierwille exalting himself in closed meetings
I guess a little of wierwille's leaven couldn't hurt
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Comply? Coerced or not, she chose? Strange word choices. I don't think you understand the meanings of the words you write.
A woman gets severely beaten because she didn't comply with her rapist. If only she free will chose to comply, she would only have been raped but not beaten.
A man's First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were trampled on and violated by a law enforcement officer. The man was beaten and arrested for exercising his Constitutional rights. He was guilty of nothing but noncompliance. Even though the man committed no crime, if he had free will chosen to comply with the illegal directives of the LEO, he wouldn't have been beaten and imprisoned.
If only Ukraine complied.... but they didn't. They free will chose death and destruction and rape. Hey! They're tough, they make their own choices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
When you say the word of God, you mean the Bible as privately interpreted by victor paul wierwille?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
And then there's the question of burden of proof. Hypothetical: person 1 makes a statement about person 2. Person 2 believes the statement is false and harmful to him (person 2) and sues person 1.
Who has the burden of proof? Who has to prove what?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
...and then there is the issue of proving actual malice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
It sounds like you imply it's up to the plaintiff to prove malice.
I would suggest if, in the jurisdiction (state) in which the legal action (lawsuit) is brought has a law subject to civil actions which requires proof of actual malice. That might be every US state, I don't know but it's likely.
So then, is it up to the plaintiff or defendant to prove the statement at issue is false?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
In other words, you have to demonstrate that the person you're accusing of slander had a malicious intent in doing so.
(At least, that's my understanding of how it works.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Who is "you?" The plaintiff, right? T-Bone's definition (as quoted) I don't think mentions malicious intent. But some or all state laws do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
correct
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I felt it was necessary to give the dictionary definition of slander because CERTAIN PEOPLE like to redefine words and misconstrue valid criticism of wierwille…that’s it – plain and simple.
Both libel and slander are forms of defamation, but libel is found in print, and slander is found in speech. Libel refers to a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression, whereas slander refers to a false spoken statement that is made to cause people to have a bad opinion of someone.
It should be noted that many people, especially when they are not writing a legal brief, or arguing in a court of law, do not distinguish between these two words, placing them both in the general semantic category of "saying or writing something untrue about someone, in order to make them look bad." However, there is a very clear difference between them.
From: What's the difference between 'slander' and 'libel'? | Merriam-Webster
This is Grease Spot Café and not a court of law.
So don't worry wierwille-fans your idol is safe for now
IF THE SHOE FITS - SHOVE IT UP YOUR -SHAVING CREAM - STAY NICE AND CLEAN
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
To me, it is/was no problem for you to have published the quoted definition.
I found no fault in what you posted. I simply got more specific. I hope you do not find that to be a problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
No problem at all – I said that for the benefit of those who like to use diversionary tactics (like referencing a court of law) as a distraction to avoid discussing the hypocrisy of wierwille and LCM. We cool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
As for the trinity, the devil is laughing (rotflmaopimp) at mainstream Christianity just like Hogan's Heroes laugh at Klink and Schultz. Christ led captivity (the devil) captive, right? God's people are supposed to have Acts 19:20 impact (so mightily grew the word of God and prevailed), not Jude 3 impact (...earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints). But the devil deceives the whole world. He's laughing at you too. VP is DEAD. He is out of your control. At the gathering together, he will be rewarded for ANYTHING he's done that pleased God, and he will not be rewarded for anything he's done that did not please God. It's simple.
A talebearer is a liar. The devil is the father of lies. Every time you repeat all that crap, you parrot the father of lies. I don't care how factual you think it is, your human pov doesn't even come close to God's eternal perspective. God planned our salvation availability when we were dead in trespasses and sins. You obsessively repeat one man's sins ad nauseum. Do you realize how self righteous and retarded that is?
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.