Nathan_Jr

Then there's the twisted game Yahweh played with Abraham and Isaac. This wicked game of parents murdering/sacrificing their own children is a self-interpreting, recurring theme. So wicked.

Right. Wickedness. I would NEVER sacrifice my son for anything or anyone. Not for any ideology. Not for man-made theology. Not for self-interpreting stories written by superstitious ancient middle easterners. Not on a boat. Not with a goat. Scapegoating - there's a self-interpreting orientalism for you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat Vicarious redemption. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement This man-made theological paradigm has ancient Jewish and pagan roots in gloved hands.

Since this entire forum arose out of religious and spiritual abuse, and we're in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible, I'll try to illustrate within a biblical context. John 20 is about Jesus appearing to the disciples in the upper room after he was buried. This story is obviously told from John's perspective, and either he or the later scribal editors were trying to make a point about Thomas and how it's better to believe blindly. But that's not the lesson revealed to me. Only because Thomas doubted was he vouchsafed the truth of the resurrection by Jesus himself. Only Thomas, of all the apostles, touched the incorporeal body of Jesus. Only Thomas went beyond BELIEF to true knowledge. Only Thomas, the DOUBTER, was awarded this astonishing understanding. He didn't have to BELIEVE it, he KNEW it, he found out. This is what I teach my son. Doubt everything and everyone (especially those claiming to HAVE the Truth.) Endeavor to find out for yourself, and you will. Maybe the author of John or the later scribal editors didn't like Thomas for some reason, or they were jealous of him, or he was out of fellowship and undeserving of spit. I don't know. But the lesson I get from this story was surely not their intention. It interpreted itself this way in spite of the scribes' intentions.

Of course, we are all conditioned, but there was a time when we were not. Can you remember back that long ago? Before you decided that you were separate? And even physics tells us that we are not separate - we are all stardust. We are conditioned by culture, by media, by TEACHERS who make great claims for themselves. (Knowing an observable fact like fire burns or walls can't be walked through is not conditioning. Or it's not what I mean by it. These are observable, actual FACTS.) Can we observe that we indeed are conditioned? Not judge it, but just look at it, see it for what it is. We can. Contrary to what vic preached, we CAN go beyond what we are taught. This requires rigorously honest self-awareness, self-examination. Belief is not knowledge. Is it? Belief is not awareness. Is it? I try to pay attention to these questions. Victor made a HUGE deal about BELIEVING. So, I want to find out why we have to believe something? Why can't we find out for ourselves and KNOW? I'm comfortable to first admit that I Iknow nothing. Only from this position can I know anything at all. I tried to address this on an another thread where I mentioned Charles Peirce's essay "Fixation of Belief." It's in the public domain, but Peirce is not pleasurable to read, because he writes like the academic scientist he was 120 years ago. "Fixation of Belief" is his treatment of how and why we come to believe. He presents four methods we use in ."fixing" our beliefs or resolving doubt. In ascending order, weakest to strongest: 1. Tenacity. If a doubt arises about X, take a particular position on X, constantly reiterate that position to yourself in a way that you begin to believe X, then shut out anything that might cause you to doubt X. [David Agler] 2. Authority. Victor said it, that settles it, I believe it. 3. Agreeable to Reason (a priori). We simply think through whatever doubt we have until we happen upon a belief that seems right to us. [David Agler] 4. Science. The scientific method.

BRILLIANT!!! I'm laughing so hard, I just ....ed myself!!!

Jesus said: That which is veiled from you shall be unveiled for you. - Logion 5 Gospel of Thomas A promise.

Thanks for these excellent articles Bolsh and T-Bone. Much to contemplate here. Confirmation bias. "Habit patterns." One must be trained, programmed, indoctrinated, "taught" to BELIEVE coincidence is pattern and correlation is causal. When one can observe freely, free from conditioning, one can see what actually is. BELIEF is NOT required to see what is true.

So funny! I didn't have a particular K&P sketch in mind, but I love their dark satire, and I was imagining vp's narrative as a 1st draft from which they could work. The BS translator suits that little charlatan. ALSO, I imagined vp's fictional story as a Family Guy cutaway. if one can read vp's narrative through a glass of Light, one can see the darkness of his lie. Satire is one way to shine the Light of Truth. Victor doesn't scare me, he doesn't teach me, he makes me laugh - I appreciate dark humor. "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy." John 10:10 Victor opens PFAL with John 10:10, but almost no one recognizes that by this verse he is introducing himself.

Thanks Word Wolf. That's it. Absolutely hilarious to read!! From the opening sentence comparing victor to Jesus to the last sentence comparing victor to Paul where the entire Far East will be opened, it reads like fiction, like a Key and Peele parody. It's laughable! Maybe, later, I will do a full treatment of this piece of work, line by line. (BTW, India is not devoid of Christians. On the west coast there is a significant Christian community that claims a very ancient tradition going back to the apostle Thomas, my favorite. But that's a topic for another thread.)

Ha! I see what you did there, Waysider. Whenever I see a preposition or conjunction in tha werd, I just have to stop and look for a glove into which it will fit. And if it won't fit logically or spiritually, I'll make it fit. If I can't do it the RIGHT way, I'll do it MY way. Bless your little hearts! I wish you could read it in the self-interpreting original

What was the spirit of Leviathan? I can't remember how (H-O-W) to interpret itself.

What this guy says is accurate (scientifically) and precise (mathematically). Imagine having a child with a narcissist and whose most readily weaponized flying monkey is the narcissist VPW. A spiritually dead zombie justifying abuse by invoking the authority of another spiritually dead zombie. Abject Horror. Some may understand it through the advanced class lens darkly. Charmer spirit, deceiver spirit and python spirit occupying a single dead zombie. Cancer spirit is extra.

Saccades. What a cool, obscure word. To answer your question, words interpret themselves. But the word in NOT that. The word cat is not the actual cat @ 6:10. The words are NOT the Word. 98% of 1st century Palestine was illiterate. People must have been amazed to see someone read and write. One could persuade anyone to believe ANYTHING, if only they could get it written down and read to an audience. Sadly, with literacy rates at an all time high, one can persuade anyone to BELIEVE anything, if only they can get it written down and read to an audience.

Right! Should have put "research" in quotes.

My take-away from this actual manufactured error is vic's glaring hypocrisy and deeply flawed research methodology. Vic claimed to be a Bible literalist and represented himself as a skilled exegete and textual critic, one who arrived at accuracy through exhaustive, precise "research." He constantly rebukes any other interpretation as eisegetical, "private," opinionated, and inaccurate. HOWEVER, here he does exactly what he preaches against: Reading into a text something that doesn't exist. Now, there are theological, Christological, and historical arguments about who Jesus' earthly father is and all the attendant implications historically, religiously, spiritually. Victor doesn't develop any of these arguments here. Perhaps he doesn't really understand how (H-O-W), perhaps he's too lazy, perhaps he's too stupid or "spiritually immature." He is hoping the viewer/reader/listener just won't notice, that they will be too intellectually fatigued from all the repetitive droning. Or that they will be so impressed with the novelty, they will BELIEVE the amazing bull$hit. It's sleight of hand. It's dishonest "research." Its magic. It's hypocrisy. Who would accept any claim of fact about something as serious as The Word of God if anyone made it with: I heard about it somewhere, can't remember where, it's not in the text, but it can be, if you make it fit. Why would one believe this? Who would even utter such an idea? This is insanity. This is your sign! This is only one of many, many self-contradictions in PFAL and collaterals. PFALToday has an ethical, intellectual and spiritual responsibility to correct this and all other errors. Mere omission of an error is not a correction.

I think that was his point in telling it this way. Again, this is how I remember it. Please correct me if my memory is not accurate (scientifically).

Thanks, Sky. I remember reading that thread and all your postings on BATS. Your voice here has been critically important to me over the years. Thank you. I should have been more precise (mathematically). I was referring to victor's story in PFAL about wading through throngs of adoring Indians and finally healing a random man's withered hand. That man didn't accept Jesus Christ, BUT he believed and ol' Vic just healed him. (At least, this is how I remember that segment.) The CORPS "teacher" I endured a few years ago told a story that about this same withered-hand-Hindi's daughter being present in New Knoxville at an advanced class or some event between 1976 and 1986. This is the "India experience" I have no reason to believe. After all, vic didn't have a healing ministry, he had a research ministry.

Yes. It's also a form of gaslighting. It's a control tactic designed to cause self doubt, because everyone is slightly wrong all the time, requiring reproof and correction. One must be "taught" how (H-O-W) scripture interprets itself rightly, otherwise it's man-made private opinion. Don't do it.... Dooon't do it!

"This is a doctrine that was invented in the 19th century in Ireland by James Darby. I wonder if the author meant John Nelson Darby, the inventor of dispensationalism. "...to indoctrinate through his Bible studies..." Gross

Yes. I know this is true.

Haha! No. The cognitive dissonance must be so painful for him.

It seems there's no reason at all to believe the India trip experiences. It's too conveniently inconvenient to verify. After that segment in PFAL, one of the sycophants at my "class" told a story about the "healed" Hindi's daughter being present at an advanced class or something at headquarters. That same flying monkey rushed to show me a photo of the 18th century French cemetery after the 4 crucified segment, as if that was evidence of anything at all. You can't believe your way to Truth. Belief is not required to find out what is true. Only a lie requires belief.

Thanks, Twinky. Your voice here at GSC has always been so encouraging. I can't say it enough: Thank God for GSC, and all the brave voices of Truth here. And for all the voices of bull$hit so we can know what it looks like.

Scripture is sacred text written by humans derived from (preposition) oral tradition. Given. But (conjunction) when is it decided that these words are sacred? And who decides? And must it be ancient? The scripture of 2 Peter is the Torah, right? Or is "Peter" talking about Paul's letters and the Gospels? 2 Peter was certainly written late enough that anything written in the 1st century might have seemed ancient to his audience... Or was Peter talking about scripture from the Far East? Or from Sumer? Or Egypt? PFAL became scripture to some soon after it was published. Who decides?

Yeah, I keep trying to remind myself of this. But (conjunction!) liars make me so angry and nauseous. I crave righteous justice to be visited upon them - and I want to watch! BUT (conjunction) my work is to let go and forgive. My ex-wife is an C-NPD. One of my last, desperate concessions to appease her, to save our marriage, to give her another chance, to trauma bond one more time before I snapped out of it was to take the "class." One of her family members was Corps, "taught" fellowship, and administered the class. So, her flying monkeys are the entire fellowship, comprised mostly of her family, and her stick is the narcissistic Vic Paul.