WordWolf

*sigh* [It's amazing how much can be invented around something really simple that was missed. Jesus' disciples weren't picked because they were the sharpest crayons in Galilee. At least once (when Jesus walked on water), they saw something they didn't understand, freaked out, and claimed it was some kind of phantasm. Jesus immediately identified himself then and there. In this account, Jesus showed up again, and again their first response was to freak out. Jesus immediately identified himself then and there. He went out of his way to make it clear he was a real person, physical, solid, and material. (Not some Gnostic, spirit-being "resurrection", a complete, bodily resurrection had been done.) How did he settle the issue? He had them take a blood sample, run it down to the CSI Jerusalem HQ, and when the results came back, then they knew it was him. Oh, come on! He did the simplest thing! Here, I'm solid! I have flesh! I have bones! I'm a real person! Anyone can go up and tell with a touch whether you have flesh and bones. They can see your teeth, they can feel your skeletal structure- skull, ribs, shoulder blades. (Except for Mark Sanguinetti, whose shoulder-blades were taken by a mad scientist for an experiment.) So, he showed them he had a human body. He let them physically touch him- I expect a few hugs were given and received, and so on. Jesus asked for food, and ate in front of him. He was solid to the touch. He had an apparent skeletal structure. He ate food. He carried on conversations. Seriously, wouldn't that settle any question of if he was real? Isn't that the most anyone would expect? He didn't mention his blood because it was completely irrelevant. If they were still not sure if it was Real Physical Jesus there, would they have been any MORE sure if Jesus grabbed a steak-knife, cut himself, and let them see the dripping blood? What would be the point of even bringing up his blood at the moment? I mean, he looked like a normal person. If he'd looked really pale, they might have suspected he was missing his blood or something, but he looked normal, and a normal person has blood circulating and giving their skin color. As for "his body hadn't changed", ridiculous! He was able to pass physically from place to place without passing through all the places in-between. That's obviously a physical ability, and one that he didn't have before and we don't have right now. (I'd sure love to have that ability right now!) He was also able to hide his identity from people when it suited him, and be obviously himself when it suited him. If you really want to break down how he did that, there's not enough information to say with any certainty. Did he transfigure his features to different ones, then transfigure them back? Did he cloud their perception slightly so his features weren't identifiable and they didn't think it was odd that they couldn't make them out? Was it something else? Nobody can TRUTHFULLY say which it was. So, that may have been a physical ability, or something else. But the translocational ability was obviously physical, as it affected his relation with matter and space. BTW, we don't know he "STILL WANTED FOOD." He ASKED for food and ate it. That, obviously, was for their benefit. He might have wanted a snack also, but that wasn't necessary to get from them. We don't know if he needed food- or how often now- or if he could somehow substitute some other energy source for his body than the usual biochemical processes. We don't know. It doesn't say, and anyone who insists they DO know is guessing right along with the rest of us.]

If it's by the Vines, the Hives, or the Killers, I probably have no chance to get it.

*looks it up* Possibly you and Nathan might know this. I've heard of this band, but it's one of the bands I've heard of but can't really name any of their songs.

Richard Roxburgh Kate Beckinsale Robbie Coltrane Hugh Jackman Shuler Hensley David Wenham

Robert Preston the Music Man Ron Howard

That's it. Bela Lugosi was in the beginning for about a minute. (He died right after some test shots- so the script was altered to use the test footage.) He was replaced by Ed Wood's dentist or something, who didn't resemble Lugosi and walked around with this cloaked arm up and looked over the cloaked arm at everything like the worst Dracula impression ever. The rest of the film does not improve.

Ok, addressing by the #s I added for ease of reply.... 1- I think everyone would agree with this, I expect I would. 2- It was vpw, but he took the behaviors he wanted, and tried to find them in a subculture. He recruited the members, and tried to adapt the behaviors into his denomination. He did slap religious language over it. Where he succeeded was in adding all of the "this is a secret" business, and in his local network. His local network helped him scout out women he was likely to be successful raping, helped him manage it, and watched for signs they were going to squeal- and had the woman thrown out and savaged her reputation as soon as it looked like she was going to sing. 3- You CAN murder and cite religious freedom. It won't WORK, but you can cite it. Where religious freedom works here is a general reluctance to dig into a religion's everyday practices, as well as vpw making up a subculture for twi that included ideas that helped him- making sex more permissive, and the "lockbox", and if you don't think something's a sin, then it isn't a sin. Religious freedom technically made it possible for vpw to try that- but it took a pervert like vpw to actually try it. 4= I agree, but that religion made the subculture easy to manufacture, plus it added the chance to demand a tithe and donations, and gave vpw pseudo- authority. 5- No, I think you're alone on that one. 6- Mostly no, although I suspect there's a reluctance to dig into claims against a religion because First Amendment rights can conflict with any investigation. 7-No, it's still illegal to drug, rape, molest, embezzle the "company funds", etc. First, someone has to blow the whistle. Then, someone has to initiate the investigation.

lcm's reality includes having been forced to "resign" at twi - and that was largely due to Waydale's contents, and what the lawyers would happen if the lawsuit went to court. He really felt the effects. 'Accountability via the internet" means that they now had a reputation on the internet, and it was a largely empty reputation. While anyone may post anything, that problem is generally self-correcting. Reputations grow and shrink, and discussions- news or otherwise- about a problem tends to publicize it- and in this case, more women, when they heard of the lawsuit, were prepared to speak up. The lawyers were worried this might lead to a "Class Action" suit, and cost twi a lot in expenses.

[Hi. I numbered your questions/statements to make them easier to address. In order: 1- No, but grievances against/crimes committed by lcm/vpw/twi were posted there, starting with a pending lawsuit. 2= Older than you were at the time, but not "old." Most people who joined twi did so by their free will- those of you raised into it were the exception and not the rule. 3- No. They were fooled into thinking vpw was the real deal, but almost nobody actually "worshipped" him. They did cut him a ridiculous amount of slack, once. 4- No. "Disagreement" doesn't cut it. It began with the discussion of a pending lawsuit, and discussion continued from there. Except around 1970 when all the hippies arrived, twi was/has been/is a horrible place for open communication and free speech. Waydale was the beginning of open discussions for a LOT of ex-twi and then-current twi. 5- I agree. 6- Apparently, people reading these discussions leaped to those conclusions. People have always leaped to conclusions on insufficient evidence. That "message" is what those people concocted as some sort of "summary" despite what was actually posted. 7-It was never true, and ex-twi\ers never said it was. Again, some outsiders jumped to conclusions. 8-Law enforcement needs to respond to complaints or see a crime in progress. Arrests are made, and the criminal justice system gets to work, with criminal court the next step. Law enforcement are not mind-readers, and nobody complained directly to them. The couple with the case brought it in CIVIL court, where they probably had a MUCH better chance to win the suit. (In the US, criminal court is to "beyond a reasonable doubt" and civil court is "the preponderance of the evidence." The latter is easier to prove.) Finally, no actual complaint anywhere said twi was where "everyone was dangerous." 9-Well, once the lynch mobs panicked and sharpened their pitchforks, a lot of attention was leveled at twi from new directions, all of it bad for twi. So, their mangled, manufactured messages got results- even though they were wildly exaggerated. 10-In the abstract, I agree. In this case, the ex-twi discussed things in a rather healthy fashion. It was outsiders who grabbed pieces of their comments, mangled the messages, and flew into a panic over the events that nobody claimed were happening. I suspect most of the panicked people had never read Waydale any more than you did. That's the nature of when people panic- part of the mob won't know what's going on in the first place. Ok, I at least understand what the basic problem was. People who went to Waydale, saw some stuff, then went into a panic based on what they CLAIMED was there and probably THOUGHT was there, but was largely in their imaginations. These people then came after ANYONE in twi, including kids who had no idea what was going on. I STILL don't blame Waydale for that one.]

That's it, courtesy of the Rolling Stones. Your turn.

All right, is there any other possibility, some other basis for thinking pfal is Divinely Special? How about "God Almighty spoke to me personally and told me it was special." Well, we go back to the problems already encountered with the 1942 "promise." In this scenario, you have a flawed pfal that in some cases says the OPPOSITE as the Bible, and you have an official endorsement from God Almighty. Which is more likely to be in error? I'd say the alleged "message from God" has a problem. If you're getting revelation from a God that's speaking error let alone endorsing error, that's a problem. More likely, it's a "god" that doesn't know half the errors that are there- or another "spirit being" who is well aware that they're endorsing error and doing so deliberately in the name of God Almighty. Who would do such a thing? Well, who would stand to benefit endorsing error and is a spirit being? So, God Almighty will not actually endorse pfal as Divinely Special, and any spirit being who does so isn't from God Almighty- although they may wish to be mistaken for a messenger of God Almighty.

We really don't need to name posters who are not participating in this thread. They're not participating in this thread, and we're better than that.

[All your posts were still there. Nobody buried them in anything. Also, declaring our posts were actually "blather" doesn't make them so. Might as well take a jar of pickles, and add the label "soup" or "apple butter." In other news, I thought the demonstration was quite effective- and it was done during actual attempts at conversation, at that.] [If you think any thread I post demonstrates flawed logic, you are welcome to post on it-civilly- and point out what you think is an actual flaw. If it's an actual flaw, that will come out. If you just don't like the thread but can't find a flaw in the logic, you can always just complain about it on a different thread.] [The word "stupid" is yours, not mine. As for the attention, it's only appropriate to point out flawed logic, especially when it's on-topic for the messageboard. Laying out the process is healthy for everyone, and there's really no downside to it, providing the logic is sound and I'm actually telling the truth. No need to celebrate getting lots of attention, it's not validation.] [I'm not quite as dismissive of them as you are. I don't fling the word "stupid" around as quickly. There's plenty of smart people who have been fooled by some trap or another, depending on the specifics, the trap and the person's specifics. I don't mind shining a spotlight on critical flaws. I also don't think "incredulity" applies to you- in this case, I find the problem is your credulity. The non-posters who can read all the posts can evaluate what we've written, and form their own opinions on things. I really don't picture them with LOW opinions. ]

Mike: "If you aren't actively renewing your mind to the Word we were taught, there is no way for you to believe me, short of an intervention by God in your lives." [Without the special procedures recommended by Mike, I agree that believing Mike's position is a slim chance at best for him. And if God Almighty intervened and told me that Mike's position was the correct one, I'd have a few burning questions, mainly to determine from whom I was getting revelation.] "In light of this, I don't care much about my credibility with you folks." [Well, that makes things easy. With him now adopting a less-incredible position than before- but insisting this was the position he held before when he actually argued AGAINST it- credibility isn't going to come easy, if at all. While we're on the subject, those grapes were probably sour anyway.] "I am grateful for the opportunity to fine tune the expression of my position for all here who can read with a mind that is thankful for what we were taught. " [I'm glad Mike's at least partly communicating his current position clearly. Now, if he would also shed the intellectual dishonesty of denying his position changed, and if he could rid himself of the hubris of acting as if his skills were equal to the other posters let alone superior, he'd have something. The doctrine would still be wildly error-ridden, but at least we could have a shot at clear, civil discussions about it.]

Next song. Arguably the first line. "Things are different today."

https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25270-was-vpw-a-con-artist-and-only-a-con-artist/

Having said all that, is there still room to claim that pfal was Divinely-something'ed? Sure. One simply has to ignore all evidence, all good sense, and the internal testimony and standard of the content itself, but one can do that if one is determined. Self-delusion is always an option, even when all the evidence is glaring, blatant, and beyond any REASONABLE doubt.

Ok, so, imagining pfal is special can't be based on the 1942 "promise" that was nothing of the kind. Imagining pfal is special can't be based on vpw being some special being. Can it be based on the actual content? A) The content never claims this standard B) The content has errors, and has had corrections (to fix previous errors.) Now, there's no basis left for thinking pfal is Divinely special- other than a dogmatic insistence that pfal is special because pfal is special. Can one find some good content in pfal and conclude from that , that pfal is Divinely special? Hardly. vpw himself said that one could get a good feeling on a Psychiatrist's couch. So, feelings are out as a determinant. As to "some good content", that's generally true of Christian writings and classes done ALL THE TIME. That would make pfal "AVERAGE."

So, the 1942 "promise" was completely invalid. Could pfal have been special because vpw was special? The man was a mediocre student ON HIS BEST DAYS. He was good at plagiarism and at delivering a sermon if someone else wrote it. He had no other skills that would qualify him for special treatment. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24593-vpws-mediocre-intellectual-accomplishments/ https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24587-wierwilles-failed-athletic-accomplishments/ https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25279-was-victor-paul-wierwille-talented-if-so-in-what-was-he-talented/ On the other hand, he was quite accomplished in sins- he used his office to rape, to molest, to drug, to indulge in his vices of tobacco and alcohol- which eventually killed him. He was also given to wrath, in addition to the plagiarism and simony. So, not qualified for special treatment, but well-qualified to be INELIGIBLE.

For the benefit of any remedial students still in the audience, I start this thread. Few of you still consider this possible. However, for those few who haven't ruled it out, there's 2 possibilities. One, you can avoid threads like this and plug your ears whenever this comes up, or two, you can look over the evidence. Now, the first matter is the alleged "1942 promise." All stated beliefs that pfal is special and God Almighty has somehow endorsed or started it stem from this "promise." This "promise" has been discredited thoroughly- and throughly. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24980-concerning-the-failure-of-the-1942-promise/ "Concerning the failure of the 1942 promise." There's an entire thread that breaks down SEVERAL of the reasons we know the 1942 "promise" was no "promise" of God Almighty. So, no 1942 promise means no reason to think pfal is special.

[It either "seems so obvious" or "is absolutely amazing" or "ridiculous", depending on your level of understanding, from profound to shallow.]

Mike: "Yes, I'd like to see the context of any quotes you have of me saying REPLACE." [See, this is what I was talking about. We've been down this road before. This is playing those silly-@$$ games we don't respect. I don't remember you using the exact word "replace." (You may have, but I didn't note it.) What you DID do is use the CONCEPT "replace" quite clearly. You said the Bibles we had were "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remnants." You said that God Almighty had to reissue His Word as pfal because there was no chance to get to the original by reading the modern Bibles. This was especially egregious because at least 2 posters (I was the 2nd) were able to quote, directly from the Orange Book, how that contradicted the Orange Book. vpw had specified techniques and said these were what WE were to use, and that, once WE had done this, we could say, "Thus saith the LORD." At the time, I was at least a bit shocked that you responded at least once to that by saying that this was how vpw did so, but WE were not able to do so, that WE were not supposed to try to do so, and that if WE tried, we wouldn't get that result. You referred to the Bible as "not God-breathed" and the pfal books as "God-breathed." Now, either you remember all that, or you don't. Either you meant all that, or you didn't. If your usage of "replace" is meant to say that you didn't MEAN "replace" because you evaded usage of that exact word despite expressing that concept pretty clearly, then you should already know what we all think of that without me telling you. ] --------------------------------- Mike: "Last night you didn't get it when I was joking with you, so I had to tell you it was a joke. And then when I get serious and more open (vulnerable? Rocky?) and you think I'm joking." ============ WordWolf: [You're wrong twice. I don't buy your claim you were joking, and. again, your credibility is at a low. As for now, I didn't say you were "joking." When you change the word of WordWolf, you no longer have the word of WordWolf. You're actually pulling the "I didn't use the word "replace", so I never used the concept "replace", and if I did, it obviously was either a joke or taken out of context, so that's all your fault for misreading me." We understood what you posted just fine. I don't have any problem with you changing your positions. Frankly, I was hoping that, over the years, you'd abandoned that previous doctrine of pfal being a new Bible that supplanted the old, and gave you a chance to let everyone know. This "I never held that position" thing is wildly dishonest. If you really want a shred of credibility here, you really have to cut that out. The worst part, is that I think you really think you never posted that- which means that your memory process is really, really prone to radical editing. It doesn't affect the rest of us, but that's not useful to you. I'm sure it LOOKS like an advantage to forever convince yourself you've never been corrected or lost an argument, or held an error-filled position then reversed it, but, really, that only works in your head and, again, causes conflict once you leave it. It was never about YOU- although you've often (and inconsistently) maintained it was. People called you on blatantly-wrong doctrine. This "I'm never wrong, I'm misquoted or joking" thing flies in politics, but we don't do politics here.]

Mike: "Yes, I'd like to see the context of any quotes you have of me saying REPLACE." [See, this is what I was talking about. We've been down this road before. This is playing those silly-@$$ games we don't respect. I don't remember you using the exact word "replace." (You may have, but I didn't note it.) What you DID do is use the CONCEPT "replace" quite clearly. You said the Bibles we had were "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remnants." You said that God Almighty had to reissue His Word as pfal because there was no chance to get to the original by reading the modern Bibles. This was especially egregious because at least 2 posters (I was the 2nd) were able to quote, directly from the Orange Book, how that contradicted the Orange Book. vpw had specified techniques and said these were what WE were to use, and that, once WE had done this, we could say, "Thus saith the LORD." At the time, I was at least a bit shocked that you responded at least once to that by saying that this was how vpw did so, but WE were not able to do so, that WE were not supposed to try to do so, and that if WE tried, we wouldn't get that result. You referred to the Bible as "not God-breathed" and the pfal books as "God-breathed." Now, either you remember all that, or you don't. Either you meant all that, or you didn't. If your usage of "replace" is meant to say that you didn't MEAN "replace" because you evaded usage of that exact word despite expressing that concept pretty clearly, then you should already know what we all think of that without me telling you. ]

"Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future. You are interested in the unknown, the mysterious, the unexplainable. That is why you are here. And now, for the first time, we are bringing to you the full story of what happened on that fateful day. We are bringing you all the evidence, based only on the secret testimony of the miserable souls who survived this terrifying ordeal. The incidents, the places. My friend, we cannot keep this a secret any longer. Let us punish the guilty. Let us reward the innocent." -There's some actors that can elevate whatever movie they're in, but there's limits no matter who the actor is- and in this case, even Bela Lugosi was unable to make this movie Oscar-worthy (some people might argue it's unwatchable.)

[Whenever someone asks the same of you, you refuse, usually with many words to obfucate that you're refusing. (Like a long post that takes a long time to write, that explains you don't have time.) My post you quoted was on the preceding page. You're a big boy, you can go back a page like everybody else. Seriously, I'm not sure if the laziness or the double-standard is more obnoxious. ]