Bolshevik

By redundancy, meaning boredom?

Paul was educated, is there doubt to that? VPW's credentials are not what he claimed. Paul was actually putting his own thoughts together based on his knowledge and experience and ability and he probably wrote and said a lot more than the epistles. Paul is written about by others who gave account of his deeds, bad and good. What evidence is there that Paul was not inspired by good intentions? Not to mention, Paul's ideas seem to have had some staying power. The criteria used to show Paul as a possible con-man are criteria set forth by VPW, the plagiarist. Is everyone VPW stole from and misrepresented con-men too?

Would it be similar to the use of term "earthly family". Because, nobody out there would understand what you meant if you said "biological family". *Cues Burning Bridges by Singing Ladies of the Remnant of Old Drapes*

I'm sure if you explained to LCM that to fight Medusa you have to look in the mirror . . . . . . he'd see it as a trick of the Adversary to get him to walk backwards . . .

I think of Medusa with her head of snakes as another example of women being associated with snakes in mythology. She turned men to stone. LCM's constant blame-shifting was just following in Adam's footsteps.

Maybe this is why Wowmobile bumper-stickers say "All Roads Lead to The Rock"

Maybe I'm not sure how uncertainty is being used here. But I would argue awareness of the fact that there is always uncertainty makes one aware of the infinite. A lack of the infinite means any god is finite, and therefore can be ultimately understood, and made unnecessary.

Stealing bicycles? https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/tripping-in-lsds-birthplace-a-story-for-e2809cbicycle-daye2809d/

LCM certainly had a greater influence here than VPW did. VPW is some dead guy who couldn't write or even plagiarize in plain english. That is all. VPW had the spirit of the 60s he could fashion and mold easily, as far as I understand. People were begging for "leaders" like him. LCM, had memories of some dead guy, and a bunch of people with nowhere else to go.

Interesting in light of a recent booted poster. https://www.livescience.com/62506-flat-earth-convention.html Despite early claims, from as far back as HG Wells' "world brain" essays in 1936, that a worldwide shared resource of knowledge such as the internet would create peace, harmony and a common interpretation of reality, it appears that quite the opposite has happened. With the increased voice afforded by social media, knowledge has been increasingly decentralized, and competing narratives have emerged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurens_Janszoon_Coster http://theweek.com/articles/454295/johannes-gutenberg-15thcentury-con-man

Is this something?

Math defines itself? So does math determine the universe? Or does math describe the universe? Certainly is a useful tool. We are built to look for patterns. We see patterns of math. But did the patterns of math shape the universe to make us to see it? Or maybe matter and energy follow rules that result in patterns we call math. I feel less cross-eyed there.

Are you saying proof is a group effort? Or is this the "is mathematics objective or subjective?" question?

Wasn't it the Blue Book where we learn to burn other people's toast?

The point with government, I would agree in that context. Not sure you begin with definitions. Most of us intuitively know atheists/humanists etc. should not be discriminated against. So constitutional documents can be modified accordingly. I think context would frame how to define terms.

I remember this as well. Start with reading material. Then remove worldly music for Way Prod. SIT for an hour per day in place of your own thoughts Time with worldly contacts with TWI events. etc. etc. And then after 3 months, why stop? That's like a dog going back on its vomit.

I see those, thanks. Yes if we set up or vary definitions we get different answers. TWI perhaps was good about making definitions strict, to keep one in a logic box. If we agree on definitions we could set up a bit of logic, but do we really get to the heart of the questions or understand one another? Maybe I don't know. Just thinking.

Short answer is I'd look at the functional aspect first, next historical, and possibly political. I take it to be a natural phenomena. I find this word to be somewhat of a moving target. (Is The Way a religion? No, any system can be hijacked :biglaugh:)

I was thinking proving a negative, since we don't have proof there's no life after death, you can't prove their isn't. I can see my mistake, thank you.

I would think proving there is no life after death is a logical fallacy? TLC did describe the realm of what is known, and what we don't know. There's a boundary between the two which we are constantly expanding onward, likely forever. Science helps with articulating the known from the unknown. Religion helps us face the unknown? If I'm understand this thread correctly it's about definitions. Is atheism a non-belief in gods or a belief there is no gods? How do we define gods?

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/08/3498202.htm Religion framed the Western mind for science.

LCM used to teach, specifically when people are in school, to say what you need to say to get an A. Then forget it and get back to truth. Wayfers often know how to jump between communication skills. I believe this is seen at all levels. Keeping in mind they've chosen to frame everyone else as "the World" (elitism)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/