WordWolf

In that thread, I also posted both the working links and pasted the contents of the pages in question. Since their author is a Mod here, I don't think there's any problem with reposting the entire content- if he doesn't like it, he can just delete the post with the paste job and leave the link post.

You had 1/2 of the links. I had to switch browsers because my other browser has support for that, so I don't have to do everything manually. So, the baby: https://web.archive.org/web/20030713171019/http://www.livingepistlessociety.org/10Blue.htm the bathwater: https://web.archive.org/web/20031030051643/http://www.livingepistlessociety.org/10Blue2.htm

He mentioned the "Actual Errors in PFAL" thread. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/4227-actual-errors-in-pfal/ The other thread actually predated all versions of the GSC, and was on Waydale (before my time.) That was his commentaries on The Blue Book (The Bible Tells Me So). However, someone reposted the contents to the GSC later. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/4730-waydale-repost-rafael-olmedas-original-blue-book-commentary/ There was also "The Blue Book- The Baby and the Bathwater." I need to check that thread, since it links to a website no longer there. However, if I can find the content elsewhere, I'll link it on the thread. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/2746-the-blue-book-the-baby-and-the-bathwater/

"I know I must be right, because so many known wrong people are objecting to my statements." Circular reasoning makes this one easy. How do I know people are "wrong"? They're disagreeing with what I "know" to be true. So, since they disgree with me, they are wrong, and since "wrong" people are disagreeing with me, I am right." "I know I must be striking a nerve, because so many are spending a lot of time and emotion trying to bury what I say." "A lot of people seem annoyed at what I post, so it must 'strike a nerve.' " "A lot of people are refuting what I say and disagreeing with me, so they must be spending a lot of time and emotion on what I say, which means I must strike a nerve." Circular reasoning again, and making oneself look SO important, significant.....

Mike: "I’ve been honest and up front about this here, that written PFAL is my only rule for faith and practice, and that it, of course includes the Bible. No matter how often or how specific I am about this limitation, written PFAL, everyone here will forget it and see in their minds me idolizing VPW, the man. I am constantly correcting people on this. How many times now have I corrected YOU on this, that my “high regard for Wierwille” is a fiction you hold in your mind constantly, no matter how many times I tell you, no, it’s wrong, it’s just written PFAL that is special to me. How many days will you go before you are posting again that I idolize VPW in some way? Let’s count." =================== I'll save him the trouble. You're the same Mike that said that vpw was "BORN WITH AN OVER-ABUNDANCE OF BRAINS AND BRAWN." You said that he was "OVER-gifted" and that "WHERE HE WALKED, THE EARTH SHOOK." To anybody but Mike, those sentences reflect an idolizing as well as "a high regard" (to say the least.) Those were your own posts, not any "fiction"- you posted that. For those who are curious, we dug a bit into vpw's brains and brawn. His athletic skills were either EQUALLED or EXCEEDED by 60% of posters here. That's hardly a reflection of "gifted", let alone "OVER-Gifted." The man was on his high school basketball team, and that was the end of his athletic career. He was neither on a team in college, nor afterwards. He DID, however, INSINUATE he did both. He said he "played basketball all through college"- which he might have done if all he did was play a game of pick-up once a semester. But there's no mention of a TEAM, and his photos show his high school team photos and NONE of college, and NONE afterwards. He said he was "involved with" the Sheboygan Redskins- which people took to mean that he actually played on the team- which is what he wanted them to think. A complete roster of the entire history of the team is available- his name is not on it. Plus, again, no photos. What does "involved with" mean? Could mean almost anything, but he wasn't a team member. He also claimed to have invented the hook shot, which was invented long before he ever picked up a basketball. As for his intellectual accomplishments, they were no great shakes either. If not for his Dad pushing for it, he wouldn't have graduated high school or gotten into college. After college, he went to Princeton Theological Seminary- a legitimate school- and attained a Masters, with a focus on HOMILETICS. He studied PREACHING, how to give a sermon. No history, no languages, nothing. This is why his knowledge of both were so deficient. As for a Doctorate, he got it through an established degree mill at the time. Around here, there's plenty of people who completed Doctorates in credentialed schools, and plenty of people who have doctorates just as legit as vpw's. None of that made him special. His biggest source of inspiration, in fact, was the dovetailing of 2 things- the need to prepare a sermon every week, and his being hired to edit a magazine of Christian writers. That pretty much covered his need to actually prepare a sermon every week. Once he discovered Bullinger, Leonard and Stiles, he ripped off their works in toto, and the rest is history. He often made pronouncements that he INSINUATED were all by revelation, but were from the John Birch Society's phone. He lacked the wit to be able to tell that they were often NONSENSE. So, definitely no "abundance of brains OR brawn", let alone OVER-Abundance. Where vpw walked, the earth did not shake.

The TV show that always skipped a step- or left out something important- was "MAC GUYVER." They didn't want people to know how to make bombs, etc. One episode, he stopped a bomb or something with a chocolate bar. What they left out is that it would work if you had a lot of chocolate bars, one wouldn't make much of a difference.

Probably Creighton Tull C.

I'm not sure what's current where. With shows like "the Bates Motel" and so on, how about "Psycho"? That had sequel movies.

Every once in a while, in society and here, there's someone who engages in this specific fallacy. "I must be right because I'm in the minority." "I must be right because lots of people keep insisting I'm wrong." "If I wasn't right after all, people wouldn't be trying to say I'm wrong!" Since this comes up, I thought I'd give this its own thread. It's a logical fallacy, which is not unknown among ex-twi, and this specific one is the private turf of the self-appointed experts, the self-proclaimed voices in the wilderness, the ones sure they are MORE right BECAUSE people refute them all the time. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/logical-take/202006/the-galileo-gambit-and-appealing-ignorance The Galileo Gambit and Appealing to Ignorance The fact that you are probably wrong, doesn’t mean you’re right. When pseudo-scientists have been bested by the solid evidence and careful research of actual accredited experts (aka authorities on a subject), they will almost inevitably pull out this quote from Galileo: "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." In their mind, they are like Galileo—the lone voice of reason, standing up for the truth against an onslaught of ignorant authorities. And this, more than anything else, in their minds, proves that they are right: “The mainstream laughed at Galileo when he said the sun was the center of the solar system; that flew against conventional wisdom too, but that turned out to be right. So my theory is right too.” But there’s a name for this: The Galileo Gambit—and it is a recognized and well-known fallacy. The Galileo Gambit The Galileo Gambit engages in many mistakes, but the main one is this: It’s a faulty analogy. The fact that two persons have one thing in common does not mean that they have everything in common—or even, another thing in common. Yes, the authorities thought Galileo was wrong, and they also think that you are wrong—but the fact that he turned out to be right doesn’t mean that you are. As Carl Sagan once put it: “The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” And for every genius who bucked the system and turned out to be right, there are a thousand that bucked the system and turned out to be wrong. If you disagree with the experts, statistically speaking, you are much more likely to be one of the Bozos. And disregarding all the times those who disagreed with the authorities turned out to be wrong, makes one guilty of even more fallacious reasoning: confirmation bias, availability error, and denying the evidence. Authority vs. Humble Reasoning With that clearly laid out, one might wonder why Galileo said what he said. Why would he think that the findings of one lone person could overrule expert consensus? Well, is that really what he meant? Let’s look at that quote again, and concentrate on a couple of words. In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Notice that he doesn’t say a single person can override the informed consensus of experts. He said it can override the authority of many. But what authority would Galileo have been talking about? Who said he was wrong? It wasn’t scientists. It was the church! He's talking about religious authorities. So what he is saying is that a bunch of people claiming something on authority alone (i.e., without evidence, because of tradition, or “because the Bible says so”) is not worth much. It can be easily overridden. What’s more, he’s not saying that the fact that one lone person merely disagreeing with the authorities is a good reason to think that one lone person is right. He is saying that a lone person’s humble reasoning is better than mere authority. Authority alone cannot outweigh the evidence of just one person who presents a good and careful scientific argument. In the same way, however, he would undoubtedly agree that the humble reasoning of just one individual cannot outweigh the humble reasoning of 100, especially if they are all checking each other’s work for errors (i.e., peer review). Indeed — what could be less humble than thinking that you, alone, know better than all the experts who have dedicated their lives to studying a topic? So a lone genius can overturn the consensus if the consensus is just based on tradition, or authority, but not if that consensus was reached through the long arduous careful process known as the scientific method." (For the curious, it's a good article, and it does continue.)

Living Colour, "Cult of Personality." "Look in my eyes, what do you see? The cult of personality. I know your anger, I know your dreams. I've been everything you wanna be. I'm the cult of personality. Like Mussolini and Kennedy, I'm the cult of personality, The cult of personality, The cult of personality. Neon lights, Nobel Prize When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies. You won't have to follow me, Only you can set me free. I sell the things you need to be. I'm the smiling face on your TV. I'm the cult of personality. I exploit you, still you love me. I tell you one and one makes three. I'm the cult of personality. Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi, I'm the cult of personality, The cult of personality, The cult of personality. Neon lights, Nobel Prize When a leader speaks, that leader dies. You won't have to follow me, Only you can set you free. You gave me fortune. You gave me fame. You gave me power in your God's name. I'm every person you need to be. I'm the cult of personality."

FYI, although the book says "by Victor Paul Wierwille" on the cover, he wrote an intro at most, and the research dept wrote everything of substance there. For a few books (Promised Seed, Passover), that was the pattern. For earlier books, either they were compilations of plagiarism of others (The Orange Book and the White Book) or transcriptions of teachings which may have been plagiarized from others (the Blue Book et al.) So, I'd expect JCOP and/or JCOPS to bless you more than other twi books despite "by vpw" on the cover. In case you were wondering why "his" writing style varies so heavily among books "he wrote". Naturally, some people insist that it was a good idea that he plagiarized some books, and a good idea he slapped his name on the books written by the Research Dept- even saying that's standard policy somewhere (not outside of twi, actually.)

This sounds familiar, but I'm having trouble coming up with an answer. It's the "current TV shows" thing that's throwing me worst. "Blade Runner"?? How about "MAD MAX"????

Right. It sounded like Merry and Pippin were killed along with the orcs, and all piled up and burned. Aragorn kicked an orc helmet and let out a howl, falling to his knees or something. After all the chasing, it seemed apt. Since Viggo had just broken his toe kicking the helmet, the scream was natural. A later fight in the same movie had VIggo chipping a tooth. The actors for Merry and Pippin have mentioned all the things they did, killing time waiting to be helicoptered from shoot to shoot. Most common were the endless rounds of "cup" they played. (Dominc Monahan and Billy Boyd, if memory serves.) Peter Jackson, of course, put himself in all 3 movies. In the first one, he's almost invisible, but easy to spot if you know where to look. The hobbits arrived in Bree, and were let in after dark. To the right, a shadowy figure stared briefly at them as they passed- that figure resembles Peter Jackson quite a bit. I forget where he was in the Two Towers. In LotR, he was very visible as the corsair pirate that Legolas FIRST shoots before the ships land.

Sarsgaard, Sarsgaard.... Skellen was in the Thor movies, Peter was promoting something else ..... "THE VIKING" ? "THE NORSEMAN???"

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that Mike discards the Big Bang Theory for Steady State. Of the two, the Big Bang Theory fits in better with the Bible, and its history should surprise nobody who knows that. Steady State's main support is PHILOSOPHICAL, and reflects more of what some scientists WANT to believe rather than what the evidence reflects. Due to evidence of the last 1 1/2 centuries, it's less popular than it used to be since the evidence for it still hasn't appeared, and evidence for the Big Bang Theory HAS. In fact, they found what you should expect to find if the BBT is correct. As for Steady State, it's still desired and still has no evidence for it, so its current adherents have been trying to shoehorn it into the BBT. They say- again, because it's philosophically comfortable, not because there's any evidence- that there's an endless cycle of Big Bangs alternating with Big Crunchs. There's no evidence there ever was one, or there were 2 Big Bangs, but Steady State isn't about good science, it's about dogmatic scientists making a leap of faith (often while deriding the other side for any leaps of faith.) Mike may have gotten some science here and there by osmosis, but if he's really a Steady State adherent, his overall grasp is rubbish. Frankly, this should surprise few by now.

I'm long overdue writing on this subject. If you're patient, I think I can serialize a bit over the next month or so, depending.

Nice summary. If someone else said that about a church that had no connection to twi, past or present, they'd claim there was an error in their thinking. If one is in a group, and benefits accrue, there's no guarantee that any one thing about the group is the reason those benefits occur. As for actual benefits in twi, it's relatively easy to track how most of those happened, with a little effort. There was a negative correlation with HQ and Root locales, generally. In fact, people who blame the corps know that- but refuse to take a look at how the benefits occurred LOCALLY and not at HQ. There was talk ABOUT benefits at HQ, but people didn't visit there and come away with stories of visiting and deliverance, healing, etc. One poster here spoke about someone he knew who wanted to get up out of a wheelchair. They went to vpw HIMSELF and asked for prayer. vpw said they would get their deliverance if they took. pfal. Naturally, they took pfal. They left twi not long after that, because the promised deliverance never showed up. Guess they should have lived in some distant place where we don't have eyewitnesses- vpw's tales of healings always score highly there!

"Now, let’s get up front about something. No matter what I write as a summary of handling that list, and no matter what amount of text I devote to each scripture, you will find SOMETHING(s) about it to totally reject it, and even if lose the argument with me, you’ll find another set of arguments to maintain your position. Isn’t that so? In other words you don’t have ANY odd feeling right now like you did with the Moody Bible people, right? You aren’t thinking, “What am I going to do if Mike unravels my anti-idol that I’ve built my religious service faith on protecting people from?” I just want you to know that I know that. And of course, you will (and have often) accuse me of the exact same; isn’t that right? You were sure you were right when you slaved for TWI, but now your are sure you are right, again. But THIS time you are really right…." Frankly, Mike, I think that's as neat a description of part of your own M.O. as anyone's ever written. No matter what we post, you will construct some pretext to reject it, and never move from your position no matter what evidence or the truth says in any amounts. You can't tell the difference between steadfastness and stubbornness. As for me ever considering changing positions, I'm open to the possibility, and may actually do so- provided sufficient evidence is provided. I have proof of that, too- I've reversed positions on something as the direct result of a discussion(s) here. The more fundamental a thing you want me to consider, however, the more firepower you'll need to bring. I'm fairly confident you don't have it and never will, but I read and consider your posts anyway. One, I might be surprised, and two, there may be something useful in there even if it's posted by accident. But I'm a LOT more respectful of your posts than you are of mine, and I actually read them. My positions are secure enough to withstand some actual scrutiny, so I am not afraid to look things over. One of the easiest things to refute is the silly position you've manufactured for posters here. "“What am I going to do if Mike unravels my anti-idol that I’ve built my religious service faith on protecting people from?” The " anti-idol" thing is a term you made up, to name a concept you made up, which is an extreme caricature of other posters' positions. It's your favorite strawman. The idea that people here have "built their religious service faith" on posting here is fascinating. It's also irrelevant to anyone who's posted here so far. Nobody has claimed anything resembling that. In fact, it only resembles your position- the building of religious service faith on what you'd term an " idol" if it was someone else saying it. The rest of us have lives outside of here that are more important to us, including to our walks as Christians (those of us who ARE Christians.) As a whole, we're fine discussing all sorts of things about vpw, twi, etc, and we do whether or not you are here. We've even discussed positive things- I started a few of those threads myself- but according to your caricature of my thinking, I can't even consider doing that. We're not afraid of examining what we know, and learning more. I know that seems odd and foreign to you, but we're not thinking the same way you are- you're deliberately limiting the way you think, congratulating yourself for it as if it's a positive thing and a benefit to you, and imagining we're doing the same.

With a LOT more face-and-name-recognition, too!

So, for fun, I'll pitch this one to the audience. Suppose someone says "Despite all the evidence that there was no 1942 promise, I believe there WAS one because I was in twi, and when I was in twi, I got blessed by God, therefore the 1942 promise MUST have been real and legitimate!" If they had the conviction and courage to post that in this thread, what would you tell them?

There's lots of positions about "the Tribulation." Skipping all the "I don't believe the Bible" positions, you still have a bunch. There's amillenialism, which says there will be NO Tribulation, no Rapture, no Millenial Reign, etc. Everything in Revelation EXCLUSIVELY referred to events contemporary to the writing. There's Post-Millenial, which puts The Rapture and the First Resurrection as the same basic event as as the same Judgement. There's the Mid-Tribulation Position, which puts The Rapture at the 3 1/2 years mark, putting it right before " The Great Tribulation". There's the Pre-Tribulation position, which holds that The Rapture (aka "the Gathering Together" or " our Blessed Hope") happens right before The Tribulation. I'm aware there's a lot of emotions on this topic here. I'm hoping to not start a flamewar. Personally, I think the Pre-Trib position is correct, and reflects the actual content of the verses best. One of the big points of disagreement is when people first believed which positions. I think quite a bit of MISinformation is out there, which bodes poorly for civil discussion but sadly is fairly common nowadays. I don't mind discussing this, but I don't want to ARGUE this.

You posted the contents and then buried them. When you brought them up again, you were asked to repost them- or even to link them- and you gave a long response that you didn't have time. You have time to go on for paragraphs or pages on how you don't have time, but the original subject seems to be too much. I think you're the only one who doesn't know what that means. So, I found it- it didn't take long- and posted it as a thread, making it easier to find. Several months later, it's like you're trying to say reposting it was your idea. As for why you'd want to refer to it without actually posting it or even linking it, that you did it is a matter of record, that's what you did. The question would not be, "Did you do it?" (you're trying to rewrite history again and say you didn't, and perhaps you've rewritten your memory of it successfully), but rather "WHY did you do it?" I can't guarantee your motives, I can only go by actions and results, and intent follows from there. With your ability to claim the contents without actually showing what they say, they retain a certain flexibility. It's the same as when you dislike how the Orange Book and yourself are at loggerheads- you really don't like it that this can be demonstrated. So, you make claims, imagine you have a shred of credibility left, and imagine that people might believe what you say are the contents. So, months after the thread's posted, you're fine giving out the link because the genie is already out of the bottle. So, you pretend that was your idea all along, post the links, and pretend you wanted that to begin with. As for how much time it would take, it's supposedly all in your records, and cutting-and-pasting would be a good 3 minutes, tops, regardless of post length. The famous "I don't have time" is such a transparent excuse by this point that I'd be amazed if it convinced ANYONE when you said it nowadays. There's talking around Scripture, and talking around pfal, but discussion of the actual content is scarce (that's when the "no time for that" pages start multiplying again.

That was him. Sure was in a lot of stuff!

I have neither an answer nor a good guess.

BTW, the other book twi pushed was "the Thirteenth Tribe", which claimed that the current Jews weren't descended from historical Jews at all, but were instead all descended from the Khazars. DNA tests were done. The current Jews are descended from historical Jews. The current Jews are not descended from the Khazars. (Ok, a few somewhere probably are, but the overwhelming majority are not, in case you find ONE and think you've discredited thousands of tests.) As for the Holocaust being a hoax, some people insist the numbers were greatly inflated- although plenty of historical evidence says otherwise. As for the "scientist" Hoggan, he tried ridiculously UNscientific things to disprove the Holocaust. He took a brick at random, from a wall that was rebuilt with new bricks, and allegedly tried to examine its surface for poison by crushing the entire brick, then testing the results. Poison was not appreciably detected. Well, no kidding! IF it had been on the brick, the crushing THEN testing would have diluted the results. Furthermore, no effort was made to actually get a brick that was exposed to poison gas, any old brick was grabbed- and many were added much later. Of course THOSE would have no exposure to poison. Shouldn't a "scientist" know better? That's no better than Koestler, who wrote "the 13th Tribe" and made all sorts of technical error. The man was a Lamarckian and he wrote about genetics. That's embarassing.