T-Bone

Where have I heard this raiders of the lost ark Word parody before? Oh yeah, using Grease Spot’s The Other Side of The Way way-back machine I addressed the pretentious nonsense of wierwille’s supposed competency and research skills…and it bears repeating here…the following is copied from my comments on another thread ( here ) : I think we can shorten the discussion by just getting right to the heart of the matter; two notable scholars F.F. Bruce and Sir Frederic Kenyon – both with expertise in the historical reliability of the New Testament have stated that very little has been lost as to what was originally written in the New Testament docs, in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by FF Bruce... it says on pages 14 and 15: “The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writers is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism. This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least. When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists’ errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice. To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none: ‘The Interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.’ “ == == == == == Bruce’s point is simple – with the increase of hand-copies comes the possibility of scribal errors – but that also means you have that many more “witnesses” as to what was originally said. And another thing to consider is what type of scribal errors occurred. Was a word misspelled, or repeated or transposed, etc. - - these would be easy to spot and corrected by comparing other copies... It appears wierwille is somewhat removed from analyzing the actual texts that are still in existence; in the PFAL book, page 128 in chapter 11, “The Translations of the Word of God”, wierwille states: “Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all verses.” == == == == == I see two issues with wierwille’s approach: First: He’s off by about a century and a half on the oldest manuscripts in existence – Bruce notes on page 10 of his book that there are in existence over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part and that the best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350. Second: wierwille is not comparing Greek manuscripts – instead he is comparing translations or versions of the Bible! That’s like playing the telephone game - the first person states a message and by the time it goes through a whole line of people the message might sound somewhat different from the original. wierwille is at the end of the line - comparing how one translator interprets a phrase in the Greek to how another translator handles the same phrase. Frankly I don’t have much faith in wierwille’s ability to see beyond his own doctrinal preferences to note differences or similarities in translations since he would come up with goofy phrases that blurred variations like “all without exception” and “all without distinction” – which is the same thing. == == == == == Here are multiple challenges: First challenge: how can wierwille claim he can get back to the authentic prophecy when it was first given if he is only looking at translations and versions instead of the manuscripts written in the original biblical languages? In my humble opinion, it is doubtful wierwille was even competent to read and understand any of the biblical languages anyway. Second challenge: what standard or criteria are you using to declare that the KJV or other translations lack validity and authority in matters of the Christian faith? Third challenge: specifically what errors are there in the KJV - or in other translations, for that matter - that need to be addressed because it is mission critical to the church and/or one’s Christian faith? Or to put it another way - what errors does your manifesto confront and resolve to make your unique creed a better version of Christianity? Fourth challenge: How is PFAL God-breathed if all wierwille did to put it together was just supposedly compare translations /versions …oh and plagiarize the work of others too? Fifth challenge: If God’s breath gave life to scripture (II Timothy 3:16) and in a way that represents an extension of God himself then doesn’t that make God a liar and thief if you believe that a bundle of plagiarized material (aka PFAL) is God-breathed? Edited January 7, 2018 by T-Bone (end of my copied post) ~ ~ ~ ~ I trust that folks are aware of the current context of this thread and my direct challenges here to figure out to whom it is addressed

Something I think a lot of big wierwille fans miss is the disparity of wierwille’s claim and supposed ministry of teaching “the Word” like it hasn’t been known since the 1st century and the actual beginnings of Christianity. 1st century church had NO KJV Bibles, most NT docs weren’t even compiled till toward the end of the 1st century. What they DID HAVE was the Lord Jesus Christ as the head of the church and His apostles to oversee in an official capacity the work of Christ’s church. From what we gather in reading the NT is that Christ and His apostles ran a really tight ship. Now let’s zip back to wierwille and way-world. He ran a supposedly Biblical research teaching and fellowship ministry. We’ve got printed Bibles - entire OT and NT in one book - in many translations and versions - and all kinds of Biblical resources in book and on computer. But you know what wierwille missed? He didn’t PRACTICE what he preached. He was a supreme hypocrite, a thief a liar a plagiarist a sexual predator and as head of TWI he was a law unto himself. Know what else he missed? That Christ is LORD and head of His church.

It is preposterous to draw parallels of TWI with the Corinthian church. Paul addressed their lackadaisical attitude toward sin - it seems they were even proud of the fact that they were not being judgmental of sexual scandals known in the church. Paul was very emphatic that a little leaven affects the whole lump! There was and still is a double standard in TWI. To the general TWI public it’s along the lines of “walk in the light and make no allowances for the flesh…walk an upright morally sound life.” … YET upper leadership - from founding president wierwille on down - they sexually preyed on women , WITH IMPUNITY !!!! The big distinction in comparing the situation of Corinth with TWI is that - in TWI one can see what happens when the moral demands of Christ are flagrantly ignored and persistent sin is like leaven that ultimately has consequences for the whole group.

Excerpt from The Crass Illustrated Etymological Handbook…under the entry for bull$hit Bull - an uncastrated male bovine animal + $hit – excrement …besides Bull$hit being a euphemism for nonsense, it can also refer to Matador feces that was extracted by the probe of a bull’s horn.

Just comic con suppose we reimagine the origin story of StuporMan. A money grubbing fake farmer launches an escapist pod pseudo-christened Plagiarism to save his legacy from a dying con game. Unbeknownst to the fake farmer, a fake farmer fan (fff) is stowed away on the pod. Unfamiliar with the controls and navigation system the fff causes Plagiarism to crash land on the planet Bizarro. The inhabitants of Bizarro are mostly a gentle race - even if they do things backwards. They helped fff repair the pod and encouraged him to employ the backwards principle to retrace his journey back to Earth. fff returned now having a denser mindset far beyond the abilities of other fffs . Inspired by Bizarro world’s unusual ways , fff made the fake farmer’s Plagiarism even more bizarre than it already was. Dodging around pointed questions. Bending what another stole in his bare hands. The amazing adventures of StuporMan ! Crash landing in a “class” near you.

Remember in the class wierwille talked about charismatic groups where one person speaks in tongues and another person interprets. For some reason that memory came to mind as one Grease Spotter clearly explains wierwille’s deception and another Grease Spotter speaks in an obfuscating tongue…obviously two different messages are being communicated here. One is speaking of the wayward works of wierwille. Some might say the other one is off his rocker.

A good Grease Spotter never sleeps - what do you think this is some rinky-dink PFAL class we’re running here? zzzZZZ Zzz – hey I heard that in the back! Very funny…very funny…You better just be checking your eyelids for pin holes, buddy, or there’s no stretched coffee for you! Now if you’ll turn in your Grease Spot syllabus to page 18 which is the session covering (as in covering with a blankie before you go night-night …hey, I already showed you on the green Grease Spot Café signup card that we’ll be getting into apparent contradictions…no, not explaining them but actually doing them – hence the blankie reference as a sleep aid in a class where you’re not supposed to sleep). zzzZZZ zzzZZ oops accidentally went to the 3rd heaven for a second - whether on this thread or out of this thread I throw up...my hands in holy tongue-lashings ...okay... uhm…where was I? oh yeah, session 18 covering The Absent Grease Spotter , please take note of the reading threads with a purpose questions – the first question is how many Grease Spotter’s were crucified on this thread? 2nd question Does quoting a Grease Spotter take the place of that Grease Spotter if they're offline? 3rd question If you could Quantum Leap back to the Gospel period and wound up in the body of Jesus Christ – then technically would it be your eyes behind Christ’s eyes? 4th question to keep my young people awake – There are two trains moving in opposite directions – one is The Mystery Train and the other is The Challenging Counterfeit. One of the engineers is none other than Jesus Christ Himself and He’s wearing a crimson train conductor hat. The four other conductors going cross-country together with Him yet distinctly independent of Him are wearing chapeaus of unknown origins. Which train will stop at which station at which time? The answer must be as close as possible to this day and time and hour. 5th question Who's on First? Sicth [sic] question Are the Sith the main antagonists in many of the Star Wars franchise? 7th question Have you seen Star Wars more times than you sat through PFAL? And for extra credit you can write a gosh-awful-long-dissertation on how your posts interpret themselves. We advise against using Scripture references, logic, slang, Latin terms, New York-ese, Ebonics, Spanglish, and various sundry redundant plagiarized nonsense – but streaming consciousness - yours or your pet’s and including hyperlinks to a Universal Translator are okey-doke...you wonder what you can say to your people at a time like this...I'm my own grandpa. and he logged off Grease Spot...then he stood up...the eyes of anyone still awake were flummoxed by that...so maybe talk amongst yourselves...and be sure to sign up for the next Grease Spot Thread in your area of concern, interest and need...go the Mass has ended...thanks be to God.

Rocky, I know you said this to Mike, but do you realize you’ve expressed a low opinion of other Grease Spotters and that you somehow assume they are letting Mike upset them? Are these the kind of methods you’ve garnered from McRaney’s book How Minds Change that you recommended in an earlier post - here fyi – you had mentioned that book before and I had put it on my to-read list…does the author promote antagonistic and argumentative techniques? I’m not really a big fan of manipulation and intimidation.

Mike now that's funny !

To be clear I said “you seem to expect” I was merely expressing how your line of questioning appeared to me. That was NOT an accusation…You replied that you did NOT expect that – and I never said you did. I think this wrinkle in our dialog back and forth may be from you misconstruing my post – a possibility you brought up earlier in a somewhat condescending “reproving post” (see here ) to which I reponed with this ( see here ) ~ ~ ~ ~ Another issue I sense – is you’re “leading the witness” or using leading questions: Suggestive Insinuation Too Many Variables Glossing Over Details Asserting Unconfirmed Qualities Jury Manipulation through Reverse Psychology…Perhaps counter-intuitively, a series of questions might be offered which, at first glance, seem to be exactly the opposite of leading. They might come across as almost strangely open-ended, even to the point of being virtually irrelevant. This is a common tactic used by attorneys to try and instill doubt in the jury by making the witness appear unreliable from: 5 examples of leading questions ~ ~ ~ ~ We can go at this all night – but I’ll probably abstain for a bit…since I’m working on a new thread to start in doctrinal. ...don't worry - I'll keep an eye out for ya - maybe it will be morning before I respond.

Rocky said: OR, is what he said on this thread the same position he has taken, and overtly stating his dismissiveness of EVERY thing that anyone who disagrees with him... just today? T-Bone’s request: I'm sorry - but can you restate the question - I don't know what you're looking for. ~ ~ ~ ~ Rocky said: He's made, apparently, 74 posts on this thread. Take your pick. T-Bone’s reply: sorry I’m still not clear on what you’re looking for. You’re confusing me. I’m 68 – that comes easy for me now Please set some parameters regarding the following: What is the position Mike has taken? Please specify Mike’s obviously dismissive statements on EVERY item Grease Spotters have expressed disagreement if you want me to respond to them all. As of this posting I see Mike is now up to 77 posts – you said “Take your pick” so do I pick one – or are you asking me to respond to everything “he said on this thread the same position he has taken, and overtly stating his dismissiveness of EVERY thing that anyone who disagrees with him”? Or did you mean only within the time frame of “just today” which you posted about an hour ago?

progress in what? "But my objective wasn't to get him to like me or listen to my perspective either. Was it yours?" I'm a little disappointed in your short-term memory...or is it selective memory? I've have stated here and on other threads where you've wondered about, challenged or mischaracterized my intentions / objectives. I'm a multipurpose kind of poster. My objective is to support the Socratic method that exposes nonsense and gets to the essential facts and truths - I see that has a twofold benefit: innocent souls who come to Grease Spot get to witness and participate in the Socratic method (seems like I've said that before ) and get a sense of the problems with wierwille, PFAL, TWI, etc. and since I don't write anyone off - I think there's even hope for the most deluded of wierwille fans. That's my approach - maybe I'm more of a softie than others

you seem to expect me to answer your overgeneralized question and seem to think your justified because of some evidence that is ignored. Do you think I private message other Grease Spotters and talk about what they think of Mike? Do you think I private message other Grease Spotters and talk about how their thinking has changed one way or the other over Mike? I assure you and Mike I do not. If any Grease Spotters disagree with my statement - please, please, please come forward and document (by referencing the private messages between me and you by time and date and the gist of the private message - you don't have to copy and paste the dialog back and forth - if you want to do that - fine! I've got nothing to hide and I've never back-stabbed anyone on Grease Spot !) Do you think I keep detailed records of every single post of who said what to whom, noting reactions and possible changes in anyone’s things? Maybe you do – if so, feel free to make a gosh-awful-long-post with lots of exact quotes to prove your point! ~ ~ ~ ~ And you are correct - I'm not impressed with your perspective.

I'm sorry - but can you restate the question - I don't know what you're looking for.

Not that I’m aware of…but I do like to give people the benefit of a doubt - especially when He has expressed on threads that he is doing so...I usually don't like to write off people...why do you ask?

Please clarify who you are asking.

Have I made any progress in what?

Not to quibble over nuances – but the Oct 7th 2022 article you referenced did say One great thing about being alive right now is that it is very easy to tell parody from reality, which is why it might have escaped your notice that the actual satirical newspaper the Onion honestly did file a real amicus brief before the Supreme Court — in defense of a man who got arrested for parody ( here is the link to that Oct 4th 2022 article - here ) …The Onion, self-styled in the brief as the “single most powerful and influential organization in human history” with a “daily readership of 4.3 trillion,” agrees. As someone else whose job hinges on the ability to write parody without being detained by the state, I also wanted to chime in… ,,,As is customary in arguments of this kind, I am now going to quote an ancient writer. I have chosen Horace, the ancient Roman satirist: “When you live in a time like this, it’s impossible not to write satire.” The world is so bizarre that you wind up writing satire whether you want to or not. One man’s ominously heightened, on-the-nose parody is another man’s straightforward accounting of the news. When the world is continually absurd without being funny, you want to turn to a form that tries to allow other people to recognize the absurdity with you… …Democracy, like parody, presumes that people are capable of noticing when someone is trying to dupe them… End of excerpts ~ ~ ~ ~ Unlike the people mentioned in the Washington Post articles, Mike’s seems oblivious to the absurdity of his own arguments. Make no mistake – on the timeline of human evolution some folks may have failed to set the current time on their Beta Tape Player…symptom is indicated by the blinking 12:00 on the front display ...there’s a suspended animation issue that develops in the flux capacitor I mean the PFAL-sucks capacitor which can trap one indefinitely - with or without exceptions and distinctions in medieval times (from the 5th to the 15th century - - NOT the family dinner theater )…like being held in abeyance due to some galactic-class idiom of permission. What I think is so pathetic about Mike’s shtick is that he tries to imitate the logical discourse of others and it appears he thinks he’s fooling everyone…in the process - rather than ridiculing others – he becomes the subject of ridicule…a familiar proverb comes to mind: It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it. The mention of fools and mockery reminds me of a couple of Biblical Proverbs: Doing wrong is fun for a fool but living wisely brings pleasure to the sensible. Proverbs 10:23 NLT Fools mock at making amends for sin, but goodwill is found among the upright. Proverbs 14: 9 NIV

With all due respect, Rocky - and I may be way off base in saying this – but I think you might be presumptuous in suggesting Mike is pushing anyone's buttons. I understand the phrase “pushing one’s buttons” means to do or say something just to make someone angry or upset. Now, you did clarify / qualify that with your follow-up words by saying at least he’s attempting to. ...I’m okay with that – he’s attempting to make some angry and upset. I agree, he certainly does try very hard to do that. But that doesn’t mean he has much success. …concerning your other comments – to me, there still seems be an arrogant confidence in your saying WordWolf "gets" Mike... at least to some degree… I wonder why WordWolf was singled out as “getting” Mike to some degree. In my opinion, the rest of your hubristic comments are in bad form too: But why ANY of you continue to let him toss you around with every wind of psychological manipulation escapes me…20 fking years. NOBODY ever gets anything in reply/response from him other than crap that fits neatly into the same damn box he's kept you in for TWO decades. good thing I’m thick skinned – otherwise some of those other harsh words and insults would bother me… …which by the way I am curious as to how one determines that Mike has psychologically manipulated any of us. Were there any polls conducted to quantify the number of Grease Spotters who were controlled by Mike? What qualifies as being manipulated? I was not aware of a “damn box” that Mike has kept any Grease Spotters in for two decades. Is that a mental construct like wierwille’s lockbox – except that the Grease Spotters who are in Mike’s lockbox are unaware that they are in it? I could be mistaken but it seems to me these are some harsh words coming from someone who has let Mike get to them. Stating your intentions might help. Reiterating what you meant to say might help too. Hey, just thought I ‘d get this off my chest…if I’m way off base then just ignore this post. Peace out T-Bone

for those who flatter themselves with grandiose delusions and blow smoke up their own personal hotspot, aka Uranus - aka the microcosm of a much larger gasbag giant – aka where the sun doesn’t shine - aka where some like to swim upstream in the mud river – aka totally ignoring the Exit Only signage… …be it known - as if I care who does – it takes much less time to debunk nonsense and idiocy than it does to identify and expose wierwille’s bull$hit to TWI-followers who still have their wits about them and are now checking out Grease Spot because they have some doubts and questions about wierwille, 1967 PFAL, PFAL Today, and The Way International.

And in a related tidbit of info: The number one rule for cult-leaders, loyal followers, and the fine upstanding citizens of la-la land: Don’t ever let anyone burst your bubble!

Thinking about my own experience - leaving a harmful and controlling cult – I went through some short-term denial - maybe that helped me to dull the pain and stress of recalibrating what I used for “reference points” and reprioritizing what to do to “fix me.” But I don’t think long-term denial is a good thing. I don’t know what’s going on in his head – but I think grandiose delusions of leading the remnant ain’t healthy... ~ ~ ~ ~ …a few excerpts with hyperlinks on denial below: The concept arose from the work of Sigmund Freud, whose daughter, Anna Freud, developed the idea of defense mechanisms, unconscious strategies whereby people protect themselves from anxious thoughts or feelings. Anna believed that denial unconsciously protected the ego from discomfort and distress by rejecting aspects of reality itself. Denial was primarily used in childhood and adolescence, she believed, and could be damaging when employed regularly in adulthood. Although many of Freud's ideas have been disproven, psychologists today still believe that defense mechanisms like denial are a valid concept. from: Psychology Today: basics of denial ~ ~ ~ ~ The notion that one is “in denial” seems to have taken on a life of its own as an agent of many ills and as a catchphrase for people who dismiss the implications of their behavior. Although denial is considered to be a defense often used by people with addictive tendencies, its attributions reach beyond those struggling with substances. Denial is also attributed to people who do not want to acknowledge that bad stuff is occurring in their lives, such as those who are attempting to cope with a tumultuous relationship, a life-threatening illness, obesity, a loss, or anything else that one may attempt to disavow. We can deny a fact, deny responsibility, deny the impact of our actions, or deny what is really going on by hiding from our feelings. In any case, when we use denial to defend ourselves or cope with what we feel, we contradict the reality of a situation or attempt to adjust to a circumstance by neglecting its impact. from: Psychology Today: emotions / feelings /being in denial ~ ~ ~ ~ In psychoanalytic theory, denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The concept of denial is important in twelve-step programs where the abandonment or reversal of denial that substance dependence is problematic forms the basis of the first, fourth, fifth, eighth and tenth steps. People who are exhibiting symptoms of a serious medical condition sometimes deny or ignore those symptoms because the idea of having a serious health problem is uncomfortable or disturbing. The American Heart Association cites denial as a principal reason that treatment of a heart attack is delayed. Because the symptoms are so varied, and often have other potential explanations, the opportunity exists for the patient to deny the emergency, often with fatal consequences. It is common for patients to delay recommended mammograms or other tests because of a fear of cancer, even though on average this worsens the long-term medical outcome. Psychology: Initial short-term denial can be a good thing, giving time to adjust to a painful or stressful issue. It might also be a precursor to making some sort of change in one's life. But denial can also be harmful; if denial persists and prevents a person from taking appropriate action, it's a harmful response. From Wikipedia: denial

I do now come to think of it - I did see the tag 4 crucified early on and was scratching my head...now I understand why you were asking.

what about going in Open forum? Open General discussion of anything