T-Bone

I'm working on a subset of 34 - if you check out the quote - and by the way - let me finishe editing I have a bunch of hyperlinks to add...I'm aware of what numbers we're up to so thanks I don't really care about the numbering - we'd have a lot more items if I individualized each sucky point - but I like doing subsets to show a relation to another point - and that's just me being my anal-retentive self everyone is free to post as they see fit - without having a fit about it

okay...back to topic 34. C. class pushes a pseudointellectualism with the Bible – which overshadows developing a relationship with Christ. Whether TWI-followers realize it or not – over time they become more concerned about relating The Bible to PFAL then relating to Jesus Christ. I admit the idea seems easy and convenient – use PFAL as a template to interpret the Bible and determine what’s applicable to oneself. From wierwille’s Power For Abundant Living: The Accuracy of the Bible, chapter 7, Man Shall Not Live By Bread Alone, page 93 begins: Man’s basic spiritual problem is not believing the integrity of the Word of God. Very few people believe that the Word of God is accurate, that it means what it says and that it says what it means. Thus man is in a constant dilemma in his quest for truth; he has no touchstone for truth because he will not go to The Word and study its integrity and accuracy. There are a few problematic ideas in wierwille’s statements. He speaks of our quest for truth and the need for a touchstone for truth. Touchstone is a standard or criterion by which something is judged or recognized. I won’t repeat myself here since I discussed in an earlier post about scientific truth offers no criteria for metaphysical truth and so I personally lean toward the correspondence theory of truth – see my earlier post > here . Another erroneous concept he repeats is the integrity and accuracy of the Word which I analyzed in my above quote. The huge problem with wierwille’s circular reasoning is that he’s using his conclusion (the integrity and accuracy of the Word = the Bible has mathematical exactness and scientific precision = it fits like a hand in a glove – those are all wierwille’s pet phrases) to show that the reason for his conclusion is true. In my opinion there’s subliminal messages as well – I’ll be brief here - the flaky ideas incognito are as follows: 1. “The Word” – wierwille’s pet phrase to brand his unique interpretation of the Bible; it is noteworthy that the few times the standalone phrase “the Word” is used – such as “ho logos” in the Greek interlinear – it’s always in reference to Jesus Christ. In PFAL, wierwille boldly states the Word takes the place of the absent Christ – there are two serious fallacies in that statement. Christ is not absent and there’s nothing that can take His place! If you think this thread is all over the map, you might want to check out OldSkool’s thread The Absent Christ? 2. Along the same lines as # 1 – an intellectual pursuit is substituted for developing a relationship with Jesus Christ and following in His footsteps; instead of WWJD = what would Jesus do? A TWI-follower’s subconscious motto tends to be WWwT = what would wierwille think? There’s little concern for imitating the selflessness and compassion of someone we think we know a lot about and so we don’t bother reading the Gospels because they’re not written to us anyway. Instead a TWI-follower will tend to frame a problem with what would wierwille think about that? When I was in-residence, we watched LCM’s video VP and Me and he explains at the beginning of his presidency he would visualize how wierwille would handle an issue. See my post on Gnosticism and WWJD versus WWwT 3. wierwille’s admixture of Gnosticism and fundamentalism fosters a contradictory belief system of irrationalism see my post on Gnosticism + an element of irrationalism in fundamentalism Think about the modern-day conveniences of printed Bibles and study resources, podcasts, radio and TV, online resources – it’s no wonder when we read certain passages, we immediately think it’s talking about the Bible. Now to be fair – the passage may be somewhat self-referencing – but considering the original audience may not have had access to a text there has to be more to it than that. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4 KJV Consider these excerpts from Wikipedia - comments on Matthew 4:4: Jesus rebuts Satan's advances by quoting scripture. The verse in question is from Deuteronomy 8:3. In its original context the verse is describing how while wandering through the wilderness in Exodus the Israelites lacked food. Despite God's promises they complained and worried about their hunger, but in the end God provided manna to feed them all. This same reply is also quoted in Luke 4:4, though in Luke it is somewhat abbreviated, not containing "but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." The quote uses the exact wording of the Septuagint, but Hill notes that it is not an exact translation of the original Hebrew which has "everything" rather than "every word." Gundry feels the author of Matthew added this section to emphasize Jesus' obedience to God.[2] Jones states that by replying with nothing but quotes from scripture, Jesus illustrates his "perfect detachment from everything except God's will." Jesus rejects Satan's idea, and uses nothing but a word of scripture as his argument. France notes that God's word would not literally make up for not having any food. Instead it is a question of priority. If God instructed Jesus to fast in the desert, then it is that word that must be followed and it takes priority over any feelings such as hunger. There are a number of explanations for why Satan attempted to have Jesus turn stones into bread and why it was important that Jesus refuse. The act of using God's powers to create bread is not in itself wrong, as demonstrated in Matthew 14 and 15 where Jesus actually does perform this miracle. In the Middle Ages it became common to argue that Satan was simply tempting Christ into gluttony. Most modern scholars do not accept this view. France notes that tempt should better be translated as test that Satan was testing Jesus' understanding of his role rather than luring him into evil. Jones notes that calling someone who has fasted for forty days gluttonous because they want food is not very fair. Most modern scholars thus reject the sin explanation. Another view that was popular for a time was that this represented Jesus rejecting the role of the "economic messiah," that in this verse he demonstrates that it is not his role to feed the hungry of the world, but rather to provide spiritual sustenance. The most popular view today is that this passage echoes the history of Israel. The quote itself comes from the part of the Old Testament describing the period after the Exodus when the Israelites were wandering hungry in the wilderness and complaining about their hunger. This verse is seen to demonstrate that Jesus does not make the same mistake they did and accepts that God will ensure his safety. Metaphorical extensions The phrase "Man shall not live by bread alone" is today a common expression meaning that people need more than material things to truly live. However, it is also sometimes used in almost the opposite sense to justify material luxuries beyond simple things like bread. End of excerpts From : Wikipedia: Matthew 4:4 ~ ~ ~ ~ here's another verse he uses in that chapter: I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2 The way wierwille had handled this verse – it was to mean out of all of the works of God’s creation the greatest of His works is His Word – and he likens it to God’s signature on a check – He guarantees it. I don’t have a real problem with that other than the misguided attitude it led me into. In my TWI years of involvement, there was almost like a disconnect in my head, thinking it was so important to “master” what the Bible says on a subject – rather than being thankful that God is always faithful to deliver on His promises. Other translations reflect as much: I bow before your holy Temple as I worship. I praise your name for your unfailing love and faithfulness; for your promises are backed by all the honor of your name. Psalm 138:2 NLT I will bow down toward Your holy temple And give thanks to Your name for Your mercy and Your truth; For You have made Your word great according to all Your name. Psalm 138:2 NASB I will bow down toward Your holy temple and give thanks to Your name for Your constant love and truth. You have exalted Your name and Your promise above everything else. Psalm 138:2 HCSB We’re all familiar with the phrase so and so is man or woman of their word. What does that mean? That person keeps their promises, they can be trusted. It’s not that the Bible is book of incantations, spells, charms, enchantments or bewitchery – like a magical formula intended to trigger a magical effect on a person or objects – a formula that can be spoken in affirmations, sung or chanted. Some of us might need to stop being so materialistic in how we view the promises of God. When I was in TWI, I tended to plug in a specific thing when looking at promises in the Bible – more money, new car, better job, etc. But now I’m still learning to be a lot more flexible – and leave it up to God to see how to work out the answer to my prayers. The promise is God answers prayer – that’s basically it. It doesn’t mean He’s always going to answer my requests the way I think He should. Notice the emphasis in the following passages in Romans 8 – the Spirit helps us – oftentimes we don’t know what specifics to pray for - but the Spirit does and intercedes according to God’s will – and God causes all things to work together so our prayers are conveniently answered – nope ! It doesn’t say that. Many times there’s a long stretch of trouble before things get worked out God’s way – often preachers will refer to Joseph’s hard road up to Genesis 50 - when he says his brothers’ betrayal of selling him into slavery, God eventually worked out for the good of Joseph and his people – so read the following with a more open mind of patience and trust in God being a person of His word is about: 26 In the same way the Spirit [comes to us and] helps us in our weakness. We do not know what prayer to offer or how to offer it as we should, but the Spirit Himself [knows our need and at the right time] intercedes on our behalf with sighs and groanings too deep for words. 27 And He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because the Spirit intercedes [before God] on behalf of God’s people in accordance with God’s will. 28 And we know [with great confidence] that God [who is deeply concerned about us] causes all things to work together [as a plan] for good for those who love God, to those who are called according to His plan and purpose. Romans 8: 26 – 28 Amplified ~ ~ ~ ~ On this last one, notice it says through the knowledge of him – it does not say through the knowledge of the Bible. There suggests a relationship with a person. Certainly knowledge of what’s in the Bible can help…and contrary to wierwille saying in the class the Bible is not an aid to devotion - that’s exactly what it is – for I think we are invited to love God…of course we will develop a certain affection for the Bible too – because we may see it as a personal message form someone who loves us very much. I’m including more of the context so we can see a number of qualities we are to include in our faith development: 3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. 8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. II Peter 1:3 – 8 KJV PFAL is promoted as a class to learn about the Bible - but it actually pushes a pseudointellectualism * with the Bible - it's faking an intellectual capacity to be appealing to others - and eclipses the importance of a dynamic relationship with Christ * Pseudointellectualism - see Quora: What is pseudointellectualism

oh stop - I can see right through your fake out (said as I cautiously look about trying to see where Waysider is)

Yeah that’s my problem - now you can see from my previous post why I’m so edgy

I would think that a biological / electrochemical approach is demystifying compared to a philosophical or religious analysis - mainly because the scientific method of observation and experimentation deals with hard evidence. …Whereas exploring the metaphysical is a lot of speculation working from a certain theory of what is true. I find Freewill versus robotic or automatic responses/ reflexes interesting on a personal level - in my battle to control my weight - I stress out over can I muster up enough willpower to change a bad habit of porking out at the dinner table

The absent hockey player

that's a pretty big gamble - what are the odds of a dead horse coming in first place? hey wait - I covered that on another thread > here - this was in response to a question WordWolf asked "Is there any chance pfal is special and endorsed by God?" > here's link to beginning of thread ...anyway I treated the question like I was a gambler trying to figure out the odds of winning but I'll save you the trouble of going there by reposting it here: MATHEMATICS PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS How to Calculate Probability Co-authored by Mario Banuelos, PhD Last Updated: October 1, 2022 Chances are (pun intended) you've encountered probability by now, but what exactly is probability, and how do you calculate it? Probability is the likelihood of a specific event happening, like winning the lottery or rolling a 6 on a die. Finding probability is easy using the probability formula (the number of favorable outcomes divided by the total number of outcomes). In this article, we'll walk you through exactly how to use the probability formula step by step, plus show you some examples of the probability formula in action. 1 Choose an event with mutually exclusive outcomes. Probability can only be calculated when the event whose probability you’re calculating either happens or doesn’t happen. The event and its opposite both cannot occur at the same time. Rolling a 5 on a die, a certain horse winning a race, are examples of mutually exclusive events. Either a 5 is rolled or it isn’t; either the horse wins or it doesn’t. Example: It would be impossible to calculate the probability of an event phrased as: "Both a 5 and a 6 will come up on a single roll of a die." ~ ~ ~ ~ 2. Define all possible events and outcomes that can occur. Let’s say you're trying to find the likelihood of rolling a 3 on a 6-sided die. "Rolling a 3" is the event, and since we know that a 6-sided die can land any one of 6 numbers, the number of outcomes is 6. So, we know that in this case, there are 6 possible events and 1 outcome whose probability we’re interested in calculating. Here are 2 more examples to help you get oriented: Example 1: What is the likelihood of choosing a day that falls on the weekend when randomly picking a day of the week? "Choosing a day that falls on the weekend" is our event, and the number of outcomes is the total number of days in a week: 7. Example 2: A jar contains 4 blue marbles, 5 red marbles and 11 white marbles. If a marble is drawn from the jar at random, what is the probability that this marble is red? "Choosing a red marble" is our event, and the number of outcomes is the total number of marbles in the jar, 20. ~ ~ ~ ~ 3. Divide the number of events by the number of possible outcomes. This will give us the probability of a single event occurring. In the case of rolling a 3 on a die, the number of events is 1 (there’s only a single 3 on each die), and the number of outcomes is 6. You can also express this relationship as 1 ÷ 6, 1/6, 0.166, or 16.6%. Here's how you find the probability of our remaining examples: Example 1: What is the likelihood of choosing a day that falls on the weekend when randomly picking a day of the week? The number of events is 2 (since 2 days out of the week are weekends), and the number of outcomes is 7. The probability is 2 ÷ 7 = 2/7. You could also express this as 0.285 or 28.5%. Example 2: A jar contains 4 blue marbles, 5 red marbles and 11 white marbles. If a marble is drawn from the jar at random, what is the probability that this marble is red? The number of events is 5 (since there are 5 red marbles), and the number of outcomes is 20. The probability is 5 ÷ 20 = 1/4. You could also express this as 0.25 or 25%. ~ ~ ~ ~ 4. Add up all possible event likelihoods to make sure they equal 1. The likelihood of all possible events needs to add up to 1 or to 100%. If the likelihood of all possible events doesn't add up to 100%, you've most likely made a mistake because you've left out a possible event. Recheck your math to make sure you’re not omitting any possible outcomes. For example, the likelihood of rolling a 3 on a 6-sided die is 1/6. But the probability of rolling all five other numbers on a die is also 1/6. 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 = 6/6 , which = 100%. Note: If you had, for example, forgotten about the number 4 on the dice, adding up the probabilities would only reach 5/6 or 83%, indicating a problem. from: Wiki How: calculating probability = = = = == = = = = == = = = == Then I did a follow up post on the same thread > here which uses the formulas to figure if stuff like PFAL is worth betting on - - and I'm reposting it here also: Posted October 10 (edited) Much earlier, the reason I mentioned the Wiki How article on calculating probability had to do with my fuzzy idea of “faith”. To commit to something, I have to be certain something will happen – as they say you can bet on it. (for extra credit I have a related topic below – Gambler’s Fallacy) Thinking of why I placed my faith in PFAL, it’s along the same lines as OldSkool and Chockfull mentioned – I was young and naïve. When I left TWI in ’86 I was having something like a double whammy crisis of faith – to have questions and doubts about PFAL and wierwille was to have questions and doubts about the Bible and God. That’s probably when my fascination with why I buy into something began. I recently read a really cool book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (see extra credit section ) – and like the title suggests the authors review evidence, witnesses and probabilities to present arguments and reasons for a phenomenal event. The analytical process in this book got me to see critical thinking as my ever-developing inner-brain-surgeon tasked to remove malignant growths but leave the healthy stuff intact. Physician, heal thyself. I got to thinking about many of the other phenomenal events mentioned in the Bible and realized there were usually witnesses. It wasn’t just one person claiming he heard God’s voice and got snow upon request as validation. Referring back to my probability post – how about we check out the Victaw Casino ( not to be confused with another casino ) I’m somewhat of a gambling man – what’s there to bet on? The stumbling dice table looks interesting. What’s the chances of God - on the qt – in other words, there’s no other witnesses – what’s the chances of God asking a pathological liar/thief/plagiarist/drunkard/sexual predator to teach the Word? Hmmmm, well Paul was a persecutor of Christians that’s pretty bad too – so yeah, at this point I guess it’s possible. Oh…wait…can I examine the dice? If it is indeed possible – then there should be other sides of the dice that have Biblical accounts of God secretly talking one-on-one to a scoundrel. I notice Paul’s conversion is NOT on the dice because there were witnesses on the road to Damascus (those who journeyed with Paul) and in the follow-up of Jesus sending Ananias to restore Paul’s sight…sorry… I hate to quibble over a little thing like witnesses…so… what else you got? Oh, this other stumbling dice game looks like fun. Victaw claims every time you roll the dice it comes up with the God-breathed PFAL class… …Again - can I examine the dice? I notice each side of the dice has some tidbit of plagiarized, dubious, and mangled material. This is really puzzling to me – because how do any combinations of the roll add up to the God-breathed PFAL class? It would be like claiming I could roll a 13 with one toss of real dice. Keep in mind the largest number I could roll is a 12 (each of the dice has numbers 1 through 6). Using probability calculations of my first post – or the extra credit hyperlink below on probability of rolling a 7 – the probability of any roll being the God-breathed PFAL class is 0 – it cannot happen. ~ ~ ~ ~ I recommend folks avoid the Victaw Casino. Remember the household of wierwille always wins. What does that mean? It does NOT mean that Victaw Casino will “win” every bet, just that return to player rates (RTPs see extra credit link below for online casino guide ) are set so that the household of wierwille will profit overall. While at first individual players may believe they’ve won something – household profits depend on loyal paying customers frequenting a thoroughly throughly absolutely completely exceedingly abundantly above redundantly rigged cult-casino because they get free Kool-Aid. What happens at Victaw Casino doesn’t stay in Victaw Casino. It can spread by offshoots, wierwille-proselytizers and even linger as mental baggage. If you or someone you know has a gambling problem with wierwille/PFAL/TWI/offshoots/ wierwille-proselytizers , may I recommend Grease Spot Café. ~ ~ ~ ~ Extra credit section The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona This is a good book to see how historians and lawyers use probabilities, hostile witnesses, preponderance of evidence = = = == The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the incorrect belief that, if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past, it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it has otherwise been established that the probability of such events does not depend on what has happened in the past. Such events, having the quality of historical independence, are referred to as statistically independent. The fallacy is commonly associated with gambling, where it may be believed, for example, that the next dice roll is more than usually likely to be six because there have recently been fewer than the expected number of sixes. The term "Monte Carlo fallacy" originates from the best known example of the phenomenon, which occurred in the Monte Carlo Casino in 1913. From: Wikipedia: Gambler’s fallacy Math Answers - what's the probability of rolling a 7 with two dice? online casinos - guide - the house always wins Edited October 10 by T-Bone come on, Grease Spot – daddy needs a new pair of shoes!

bear in mind that ALL protocols were established by wierwille

I go further back on when he started making really bad decisions - like the claim of the 1942 promise. it's relative on what a person deems as bad

That’s okay man, we’re here to help you remember the great things you forgot the first time you went through the PFAL-cognitive-skills-grinder…are you trying to remember his name – you were close – it’s Ppp pp …Pepé Le Pew and his stinky doctrines (sorry I have a little bit of a stuttering problem myself...might be that PPFALTSD - post PFAL traumatic stress disorder...I've been to hell and back...I thought I'd get a Purple Heart or something...but all I got was a way corps nametag)

Socrates and Nathan_Jr have pointed out the hypocrisy of wierwille – he disparaged academia and yet it appeared he so wanted to be accepted by them – buying a title from a degree-mill – always demanding everyone address him as “Doctor” ~ ~ ~ ~ Like father like son? Mike likes to insinuate himself into academia too…but I find this odd…Mike often belittles academia – especially when comparing the greatness of PFAL – wierwille said you can’t go beyond what you’re taught – and since legitimate scholars wouldn’t waste their time with PFAL, they can’t go beyond what’s taught in PFAL. So why does he try to appear he has ties to academia? Why does he try to appear he’s in the same category as them in intelligence or even discipline-wise?

wow - I don't believe it - Mike said PFAL sucks

then, when there's a lull

A smashing group – I was blown away by Pflap and the Collaterals' first album – it’s the bomb ! Album title: Collateral Damage

IQ = IQ is an abbreviation for Intelligence Quotient. It is a score that shows how well someone understands and interprets the world around them. Understood…you’re saying you’re filled with so much hate that it’s very difficult for you to understand and interpret what happens here

Flunky = a person who performs relatively menial tasks for someone else, especially obsequiously. a liveried manservant or footman, synonyms: liveried manservant · liveried servant · lackey · steward · butler · footman · valet · retainer · attendant · factotum · houseboy · cabin boy on the Titanic (someone who was never in the way corps but wants to appear he’s spiritually superior to the way corps)

M: never absorbed T: poor choice of words there M: I always thought it odd that no one ever connected “ecclesiastical bodies” with the Way Corps. T: "ecclesiastical" = relating to the clergy of the Christian Church you do remember it was wierwille who set up the ordination protocols for clergy - you do remember that don't you?

I was doing some research on how trolls work and found this I thought this would be a picture of a Troll not in service Then I realized my interpolation accidentally added an “ey” in the original text…my bad Still might work…not in service = not being in a state of use or employment

coming full circle: Mike said: Actually, it is often the case that I back off or avoid a topic due to my lack of understanding. That would be totally transparent to you, or you might conclude I was dodging to avoid being proved wrong. T-Bone: your lack of knowledge has never stopped you from posting before

Your mind has stayed orange

M: Actually, it is often the case that I back off or avoid a topic due to my lack of understanding. T: On the contrary, I notice you plow ahead with nonsense anyway M: That would be totally transparent to you, or you might conclude I was dodging to avoid being proved wrong. T: You’re absolutely correct – it’s plain to see that you’re dodging to avoid being wrong M: Much more often it's the case that because I have been continuously reviewing PFAL since the mid 80s, T: well…that might be part of the problem – you’ve got you head stuck in a place where the shine never shines M: I find that lots of things were forgotten by folks here, so I speak up. T: That’s another problem…I’ve never forgotten the twisted nonsense that wierwille/PFAL taught – matter of fact, I usually can remember in great detail everything BETTER THAN YOU CAN…and I wish I could forget the 12 years of making bad decisions based on a cult-leader’s agenda…but Grease Spot Café is part of my therapy now and where and when I can, I like to help others – and what I share with others isn’t always “This is how you can recover…” rather it’s something inexplicable – maybe as a subtext to what I share – it may provide hope to a reader. NOT as a guide for how to leave The Way International and unpack the mental and emotional baggage. But merely as proof that it can be done, and it won’t ruin your life. Their how-to’s, therapies, and recovery strategies may be totally different than mine. And they'll probably work just as well……and for those reasons I speak up. M:The more I know from my constant reviewing, the louder I post. T: absorbing huge amounts of LoShonta to reach critical mass – I understand iyay absorbyay ereforethay iyay ostpay (pig-Latin for the greatest philosophy in Mike’s world today: I absorb therefore I post)

that sounds a little creepy…but I think you may have found a loophole to get around a nonconsensual charge… For some reason I’m reminded of wierwille, slipping a Roofie to a woman in the way corps - cheers

perhaps you stalled out at wierwille road and highway PFAL you should avoid those backcountry roads - might be awhile before help comes along...whatever you do don't accept a ride from the L.E.A.D. truck.

your lack of knowledge has never stopped you from posting before