WordWolf

Well, it's obvious, but only to those who lived through it and saw it directly, that in twi under vpw, when it was said that "The Word takes the place of the absent Christ," what's meant is that "wierwille's words take the place of Christ, who's not here to object." So, "What would wierwille think" really did become a thing, no matter who would be slow to admit it. Frankly, they probably should have just sold bumper stickers with that on them.

I recommend seeing it at least once. Wordpup saw it this Halloween. Even he thought it was a good movie. I'm fascinated about how we follow a completely different movie for the first 20 minutes than we do for the next 20, and so on..... I can heavily quote the first 20 minutes and not hit any of the more famous lines, which show up more as the movie unfolds.

Thanks a lot, Sugar, um Chief, um, I'll have the next one up soon, I guess.

You keep asking, he'll keep dodging. Can't change his spots.

And if there weren't, he'd have another excuse as to why he won't- he's used them for decades- but by now it's obvious he CAN'T. (By that, I mean what he's been asked to do- be brief and clear.)

After seeing him unable to do it here, I'm confident he can't do it for the professors, either. He is who he is.

He's been giving the same answer the entire time he's been here. "Can you post something both brief and clear?" "*evasion*" If he had SOMETHING, there would have been SOMETHING he could whip out and say "Here's something noteworthy" and we'd be able to say "How about that, something noteworthy." He's had over 20 years to find it, so if he hasn't found it yet....

This isn't exactly new. There's a reason I responded to his mentioning of the group with casualness. It was going to be a LOT less than he began advertising, by the time the details arrived. Any wonder why his credibility is shot here? There's more than 1 reason.

Um..... no.

There was an entire movie attached to the off-the-wall ads. However, it was NOT this movie.

Ok, I'd like to continue this discussion from a different angle. That the 1942 "promise" was a poorly-written lie is evident beyond any REASONABLE doubt. That vpw was, in reality, a conman looking for the best material to plagiarize, who made up the 1942 "promise" to assist in his con at useful moments is, again, beyond any REASONABLE doubt. That pfal/twi materials contain a mix of plagiarized material of varying quality- some excellent, some nonsense, and some added by vpw who didn't understand what he was plagiarizing- is, again, beyond any REASONABLE doubt. So, let us take all of that as GIVEN. We all know it. Now, then, starting from a position that we know all that, I ask everyone...... What difference does it make? If someone, by their free will, knowingly discard all warnings and all warning signs, and dogmatically clings to pfal as if it was of some actual consequence to God Almighty and to humanity as a whole, and focus their entire life around that by their own choice, what of it? Does this really harm the person at all? Is there some reason they should actually stop? (I'm interested in hearing what the rest of you have to say on the subject.)

"Headaches are like resolutions. You forget them as soon as they stop hurting." "So far of those I've used, I haven't had much luck with any of them. Well, let's see what they say about this one. They tell you what it's ingredients are, and how it's guaranteed to exterminate every insect in the world, but they do not tell you whether or not it's painless. And I say, insect or man, death should always be painless." "Sam, this is the last time." "For what?" "For this. Meeting you in secret so we can be secretive. You come down here on business trips, the occasional lunch hour, and I wish you wouldn't even come." "All right, what do we do instead? Write each other lurid love letters? I can come down next week." "No." "Not even just to see you? Have lunch? In public." "Oh, we can see each other. We can even have dinner, but respectably — in my house with my mother's picture on the mantle, and my sister helping me broil a big steak for three." "And after the steak, do we send sister to the movies? Turn mama's picture to the wall?" "Sam!" "All right. Marion, whenever it's possible I want to see you and under any circumstances, even respectability." "You make respectability sound disrespectful." "Oh no, I'm all for it. But it requires patience, temperance, with a lot of sweating out. Otherwise though, it's just hard work. But if I could see you and touch you, you know, simply as this, I won't mind." "You've never had an empty moment in your entire life, have you?" "Only my share." "Where are you going? I didn't mean to pry." "I'm looking for a private island." "What are you running away from?" "Wh-why do you ask that?" "People never run away from anything." "The rain didn't last long, did it? [Pause] You know what I think? I think that we're all in our private traps, clamped in them, and none of us can ever get out. We scratch and we claw, but only at the air, only at each other, and for all of it, we never budge an inch." "Sometimes, we deliberately step into those traps." "I was born in mine. I don't mind it anymore." "Oh, but you should! You should mind it!" "Oh, I do, [laughs] but I say I don't." "You know, if anyone ever talked to me the way I heard — the way she spoke to you..." "Uh... hold it there. In quite a hurry." "Yes. Uh... I didn't intend to sleep so long. I almost had an accident last night, from sleepiness. So I decided to pull over." "You slept here all night?" "Yes. As I said, I couldn't keep my eyes open." "There are plenty of motels in this area. You should've... I mean, just to be safe." "I didn't intend to sleep all night! I just pulled over. Have I broken any laws?" "No, ma'am." "Then I'm free to go?" "Is anything wrong?" "Of course not. Am I acting as if there's something wrong?" "Frankly, yes." "Please... I'd like to go." "Well, is there?" Is there what? I've told you there's nothing wrong, except that I'm in a hurry and you're taking up my time." "Now, just a moment! Turn off your motor, please. May I see your license?" "Why?" "Please." "I'm in no mood for trouble." "What?" "There's an old saying, 'First customer of the day is always the trouble!' But like I say, I'm in no mood for it, so I'm gonna treat you so fair and square that you won't have one human reason to give me..." "Can I trade my car in and take another?" "Do anything you've a mind to. Bein' a woman, you will. That yours?" "Yes, it's just that - there's nothing wrong with it. I just..." "Sick of the sight of it! Well, why don't you have a look around here and see if there's somethin' that strikes your eyes, and meanwhile I'll have my mechanic give yours the once over. You want some coffee? I was just about..." "No, thank you. I'm in a hurry. I just want to make a change, and..." "One thing people never oughtta be when they're buyin' used cars, and that's in a hurry. But like I said, it's too nice a day to argue. I'll uh - shoot your car in the garage here." "It's the first time the customer ever high-pressured the salesman. I figure roughly... your car plus seven hundred dollars." "Seven hundred dollars?" "You always got time to argue money, huh?" "Heck, Officer, that was the first time I ever saw the customer high-pressure the salesman! Somebody chasin' her?" "I better have a look at those papers, Charlie." "She look like the wrong-one to you?" "Acted like one." The only funny thing, she paid me seven hundred dollars in cash."

Jack Larson... Jeepers, Mister St-George, is this JIMMY OLSEN?

It's cute how casually you can ascribe hidden meanings into the most straightforward points. You took this verse as if it spoke about pfal or some writings of a man that goes through editing. This verse was entirely to get across the PURITY of the words of the LORD. How pure is it? Human language lacks the depth to truly convey it. The word of the LORD is 50 pounds of purity in a one-pound box. it's like silver that's been re-smelted seven times to eliminate impurities- THAT'S HOW PURE ARE THE WORDS OF THE LORD. Taking meaning from the analogy of purifying what's considered a pure metal- and then running with that analogy and applying it to something else, well, that's unsound. If you wonder why you don't get converts here, it's because your processes are unsound and result- as they will- with errors. Since you're unable to notice it, to you it's like they don't exist and others are making them up. But that doesn't change the errors. Label the jar of pickles "soup" or "apple butter" and that doesn't change the contents.

So Crates: "The first flaw in your theory: how would you know you have the truth? And spare me the you have the Word bull. Catholics have the Word and they claim the have the truth. So do Presbyterians. So do Baptists. So does any one of 2500 Christian religions, all claiming they--and only they--have the one true truth. So how do you know when you have the truth?" Mike:"You sound like academia here. Sorry, you don't get spared. If God can't verify to you when you got the truth then maybe you got the wrong god. If you got the god of academia, you are NOT ALLOWED to have truth or to know if if it lands in your lap." Once again, Mike's demonstrating a lack of substance. It happens whenever there's a direct question, and this particular question strikes at the heart of Mike's entire belief system- Mike, how would you know you have the truth? Mike FLED the question and changed the subject. Mike's system has an answer that is FAR too weak to withstand even CASUAL scrutiny, so he does the "dodge, distract, evade, but never admit an error is an error" system he himself posted that he uses. But, the non-answer has answered quite a bit by what it fled.] So Crates: "Sorry YOU don't get spared. How do you know you don't THINK God is verifying the truth to you. Plenty of people have claimed God verified the truth and it was proven their claim was them lying to themselves. Besides, you've never heard of false prophets?" So Crates:"Do you read what you write? Or do you fade in and out? Saint Vic was obsessed with academia. After all, he implied he went to Princeton university and insisted everyone call him doctor. I doubt he had a TARIS hidden somewhere. So, considering his obsession with academia, by your own admission he was NOT ALLOWED to have the truth or know it if it was in his lap." Nathan Jr: "This hypocrisy needs to be understood. Well said. victor went to great lengths to bash academia, yet he beleeeved those credentials to be so very important that he purchased a "degree" so he could pretend to have academic authority and credibility. Why invoke an academic title, if it's meaningless?"

[NOW I think we hit upon why you were invited. You were in the community, you were interested, and you were not an academic in that field. So, having you in the room looked good when they asked for grants. Just don't cause trouble in the room, and there you go. Exactly how much you understood was debatable, but that wasn't the point for them. Naturally, from your POV, you're confident you got it all.]

A) Most scholars are actively looking for the truth. That's why researchers research and experimenters experiment- they're looking for some form of the truth. B) This black/white thinking you laud is incredibly harmful, and is obvious in moments like this. If one has "found the truth on an issue", one must maintain the POSSIBILITY that one is wrong, and that a greater truth is out there. Otherwise, when greater truth arrives, one will actively SUPPRESS it and be HOSTILE to it. I've changed my mind when greater information overrode what I previously believed- and wanted to believe. When they discovered the atom, they believed it was insplittable, and named it so- "atom", uncuttable. Then someone figured out how to split the atom. Were they taken out and beaten to death with a rock? No- tentatively, scientists looked to see if he was right. When he demonstrated he was correct, they changed their thinking. Scientists used to be Lamarckians. They used to think that DNA or whatever was simple, and easy to change. They believed the agent of change was activity. When a proto-giraffe stretched its neck to reach leaves, its offspring would have a slightly longer neck. When a bird needed a sharper beak or a harder beak, his offspring would inherit it. And so on. (Charles Darwin was a Lamarckian.) Since then, they've discarded Lamarckianism because DNA is FAR more complicated, and does not work like that. So, for the rest of us, it's possible to change our minds- even if it will take a lot. This keeps us from missing something greater, more fundamental. You're proud nothing can change your mind. I wouldn't brag about that.

I can buy that you knew the lingo and that you spoke on the telephone for 10 minutes.

"Headaches are like resolutions. You forget them as soon as they stop hurting." "So far of those I've used, I haven't had much luck with any of them. Well, let's see what they say about this one. They tell you what it's ingredients are, and how it's guaranteed to exterminate every insect in the world, but they do not tell you whether or not it's painless. And I say, insect or man, death should always be painless." "Sam, this is the last time." "For what?" "For this. Meeting you in secret so we can be secretive. You come down here on business trips, the occasional lunch hour, and I wish you wouldn't even come." "All right, what do we do instead? Write each other lurid love letters? I can come down next week." "No." "Not even just to see you? Have lunch? In public." "Oh, we can see each other. We can even have dinner, but respectably — in my house with my mother's picture on the mantle, and my sister helping me broil a big steak for three." "And after the steak, do we send sister to the movies? Turn mama's picture to the wall?" "Sam!" "All right. Marion, whenever it's possible I want to see you and under any circumstances, even respectability." "You make respectability sound disrespectful." "Oh no, I'm all for it. But it requires patience, temperance, with a lot of sweating out. Otherwise though, it's just hard work. But if I could see you and touch you, you know, simply as this, I won't mind." "You've never had an empty moment in your entire life, have you?" "Only my share." "Where are you going? I didn't mean to pry." "I'm looking for a private island." "What are you running away from?" "Wh-why do you ask that?" "People never run away from anything." "The rain didn't last long, did it? [Pause] You know what I think? I think that we're all in our private traps, clamped in them, and none of us can ever get out. We scratch and we claw, but only at the air, only at each other, and for all of it, we never budge an inch." "Sometimes, we deliberately step into those traps." "I was born in mine. I don't mind it anymore." "Oh, but you should! You should mind it!" "Oh, I do, [laughs] but I say I don't." "You know, if anyone ever talked to me the way I heard — the way she spoke to you..."

What? Oh, right.

Warren Sanchez was introduced to a poor man who asked Warren: 'Brother, what is the meaning of life?' Warren answered: 'The meaning of life I will tell you In four words: How would I know?" What did Warren wish to tell us with this? Let us analyze the phrase. "I" , ego. It would appear to indicate egotism, worship of the self, haughtiness. The thing is that here, Warren uses it through opposition, to tell us precisely the opposite. In other words, humility. So that it is quite clear here, when Warren says "I", he is saying "humility." But Warren says something further. Warren says, "How should I know?" In other words, "I, who should know." In sum, brethren, Warren knows the meaning of life, but humility keeps him from saying it.

Assuming inerrancy on the behalf of wierwille leads one to post drivel like this. if wierwille comes up with something easily proven as wrong, then wierwille didn't actually MAKE A MISTAKE, no, he secretly USED A FIGURE OF SPEECH.

Actually, that's exactly what we're getting. Called it.

You added the word "really" to the word of wierwille. When you add to the word of wierwille, you no longer have the word of wierwille. There's a certain irony of taking face-to-face, or mouth-to-mouth, as God put it, in this context. You said communicating in the "5 senses", like an audible conversation, is CRUDE and LIMITED, and that it is "far from a face-to-face conversation." Don't you get it? God confirmed that "face to face conversations" are personal, but since they're by the senses, you're categorizing them- inadvertently- as "CRUDE and LIMITED." Don't you listen to yourself? That's an internal contradiction- and it came from trying to make obvious errors into secret truths.

When beginning the discussion with a given of an ALMIGHTY God, the idea of that ALMIGHTY God having "difficulty" with ANYTHING is a ludicrous one. "Less efficient", to one with infinite resources, is equally ludicrous.