WordWolf

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.

Dr Fu Manchu Grigori Rasputin Mycroft Holmes Jonathan Blair Bernard Day Chris Lewis Sir Felix Raybourne Georges Seurat Harry Cooper Lt Cdr Dick Raikes, RN Karaga Pasha John Preston Franz Vermes Gil Rossi Charles Highbury Marquis St. Evremonde Sir Henry Baskerville Dr. Pierre Gerard Prof. Alan Driscoll Paul Allen Capt. Wolfgang von Kleinschmidt Mephistoles Count Ludwig Karnstein Prof. Karl Meister

Wasn't he also in "Bonanza", which would be another period piece? I was sure he played "Little Joe", and I think that was a "Bonanza" character.

"At first I was occasionally very squeamish listening to this because I’m always very squeamish about adults playing like this. Those “murder mystery dinner theater” things that is a restaurant setting with real food make me squeamish just to talk about. Or the Renaissance Fairs where people get dressed up in costumes and start talking with “thee” and “thou” and pretending like they’re living 1000 years ago. I have always stayed away from those things, and I’m even laughing right now typing about them. I don’t see how adults could go there, but if I guess I had the right date coaxing me, I could get talked into it. " ======================= Mike, that sort of thing isn't entertaining for everyone, but it can be a lot of fun. The important part is a willingness to continue to actually be yourself- and to be willing to pretend otherwise for minutes or hours. People have been doing plays for millenia, and there's all sorts of "lets-pretend" where you either pretend while acting, or with a paper-and-pencil game (or online game). There's an incredible variety of them. You don't have to try any of them, but you don't have to be scared of any of them, either. In the 70s/80s, there was a public panic over Dungeons and Dragons. Like so many things that were predicted to destroy the US, it did not. It sure would have surprised Dave Arneson- one of its makers and former twi member. Maybe you can try an Escape Room or something, and see if it makes you equally squeamish.

Here are some of my thoughts on the topic. If they're of some use to you, great. lcm was big on using Christ's return as a bludgeon to get people to take more twi classes and serve twi more. (At the end of AotS, his exhortations stopped at Twig coordinator and Advanced Class grad, as if anyone who didn't at least qualify for one or the other didn't count.) He also focused on getting more rewards when Jesus returns- as if that's a healthy reason to look forward to it. I'm looking forward to it regardless of titles, rewards, etc. Partly, I want to get together with Christians I haven't seen in a long time, or ones I've always wanted to meet (especially George Mueller.) Inasmuch as it's possible, the 2nd Tuesday after, I'm interested in hosting a barbecue, wherever we are. This whole "focus on grades" thing just doesn't move me. Does it seem farfetched to me? I guess that's the best question. Yes, it seems farfetched to me. Should I believe it anyway? Well, as I see it, if I believe the Bible, then yes. Should I believe the Bible that includes some farfetched things? As I see it, yes. If it's farfetched, why should I? Well, some things I can't prove or disprove, and become matters of faith. Should I have faith that they are true? That goes to the things that I CAN prove or disprove. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If I am to believe the Bible, then I'm going to need sufficient proof. (Long ago, when I was a Bible SCOFFER, it would have taken some exceptional proof to even get me to CONSIDER whether or not the Bible was correct. I did consider- which says more than a little. You don't see a guy for 2 months, and when you see him again, he's gone from Bible MOCKER to Bible QUOTER and holding it forth? What happened that Summer?) When it comes to believing the Bible, I think-to me- it comes down to getting incredibly specific answers to prayer- answers that could not POSSIBLY be due to coincidences, timing, involvement of other humans, etc. In twi, too many people lauded "Kojacking" (getting a great parking spot rapidly) as a big deal. If that's the standard, you won't convince me it could not be coincidences and timing. For that matter, it wouldn't be the performances of alleged "faith healers" that would convince me, either. I was interested in stage magic since I was small, and I'm well aware how most stunts of supposed "faith healing" works- like transferring evil to an egg, etc, all through sleight-of-hand and stage magic skills. So, for me, sufficient proof has been provided, beyond a reasonable doubt, on multiple occasions. So, I believe what I can "test" holds up- which means I believe the foundation for it. I've been aware for decades that a lot of Christians have a deep faith despite never seeing anything truly remarkable, incredible, etc. I'm sure they believe, I still don't know how they believe. I was taught like that as a kid, and as a teen I walked away from it because there was nothing to convince me any of it was true other than "because I say so." Had there been nothing to see, I wouldn't be a Christian now, because I stopped being a Christian then. So, part of me is amazed some people believe that deeply without something obvious at some point. How does it affect my life? I'm sure it doesn't affect it as much as it should. I do still mention it when discussing plans for the coming week and so on, and I look forward to it, whenever it happens. At one point, I was convinced it would probably happen within a few years- but I only told maybe 3 people and made it clear it was my opinion, what I thought. Obviously, I was wrong, but that happens. I certainly take some comfort that it WILL happen regardless of WHEN it will happen. In short, I am confident it will happen, and I don't doubt it will happen. It probably should affect my life more, but I try to serve God and I'm not going to pretend I do a fantastic job. God knew who He was calling when He did it, so I know He's not expecting the amazing out of me every 3rd Wednesday or something. I make a difference here and there, and freely acknowledge that it's not about me at all, but about God Almighty. If Jesus wants something specific from me otherwise, he knows where to find me, and how to convince me it's him or his messenger quickly. I'm not sure I answered your questions, but I hope I made a difference somewhere in there.

You believe you received "countless blessings" in twi, therefore you believe that that could ONLY be a consequence if vpw actually heard from God in 1942 with specifics that have been disproven. There's some rather obvious flaws in your "logic", but if you refuse to examine it, you won't improve.

That type of nonsense, yes. In that particular case, that was in lcm's time. So, I'd expect lcm had been in the office, listening to the hotline, before "coming up" with that one.

If that had been the main reason the book was in the twi bookstore, we all would have heard of that as the reason. We've all heard different accounts of some things due to official explanations being absent. In the case of anti-Semitism, that was pushed by the John Birch Society. vpw had a hotline actually installed at hq so he could get the latest up-to-the-moment drivel, and he often listened to it shortly before stepping to the podium to teach. So, no, Hal Lindsey wasn't the reason for the book, the JBS was.

You're referring to the John Birch Society. Not only did he get their newsletter, he actually had a hotline put in so he could always phone up and get their latest nonsense 24/7. (That was courtesy DWBH, who was on-grounds and knew about the line.)

A rebel? Hedy Lamarr?????

Past or future....... That show was well-known AND lasted several seasons, and had something of an ensemble..... Now I'm thinking this might be something with Kevin Sorbo, since he did shows in both directions. The previous show might have been "Hercules- the Legendary Journeys."

See? Someone with a little time and dedication can find all the information we'd like on actual research, manuscripts, and so on.

"Someday we’re going to find a manuscript that verifies this." "“We probably won’t find a manuscript in my lifetime that verifies this, but my spiritual awareness tells me what the original has to say.” Well, most people will look at this, if not through the lens of adoration of the speaker, and say that this is obviously an attempt by a person to disregard all the available evidence and claim something for which no evidence exists, allowing them to make ridiculous claims that contradict Scripture. When lcm said this stuff, his go-to phrase for pulling stuff out of his sit-upon was "You'd know this if you worked The Word on this." In vpw's case, it was the manuscripts that nobody's ever seen that somehow still support vpw's claims even if they have been read by nobody and there's no proof they even exist. Their existence is all predicated on the "spiritual awareness" of a plagiarizing rapist who lied and claimed to hear from God, who plagiarized the works of many others and still flubbed it often, who listened to conspiracy nuts then turned around and reported what they said and pretended it was Divine Revelation that told him, and got his "doctorate" from a degree mill. Once all that is known, what kind of credibility does the speaker have? That's right- none at all. It was all smoke and mirrors. But when we didn't know any better, that nonsense played a LOT better because we trusted someone untrustworthy and thought we could trust him. "I heard a complaint, circa 1977-78, about the research department from 2 associates or members of that department, just a month or two before they were kicked out of the 7th Corps. They told me that VPW was manipulating things and not doing valid research. " Sure sounds like what was just documented. It's remarkably straightforward. He appealed to the authority of what was written in IMAGINARY DOCUMENTS. That's "not doing valid research" to say the least. (To say the most, it's champion-level Bullshirting to pull that and get away with it.) "It all depends on what the goal of the research is. (A) If the goal is to FIND truths not yet known, using only methods of the senses and logic, then the known manuscripts must be recognized as the only evidence available to work with. Everything must be built on that known evidence." That's called "RESEARCH." That's how RESEARCH WORKS. "(B) If the goal is to VERIFY truths already known spiritually, then unknown manuscripts may be sought in that verification. Of course, method B is not recognized by academia at all. The possibility of spiritually knowing anything like this is denied there totally. In other words the students of the Bible forbid the Author from giving revelation to explain the Bible. They want to do it all themselves." There's no demonstrated difference between "truths already known spiritually" and "outright bullshirt" here, neither is there one in practice. vpw was looking for imaginary manuscripts that matched what he CLAIMED to know, and is ASSUMED he knew "spiritually" because he implied that, insinuated that, and (rarely) actually said it outright. All of it rests entirely on the credibility of the claimant- and he was proven to be a liar, fraud, plagiarist..... Academia doesn't recognize IMAGINARY MANUSCRIPTS. Nor should it. How would you feel if someone announced that everything you believed was now specifically disproven and forbidden due to an IMAGINARY MANUSCRIPT that MUST contradict you? Academia is based on what can actually be shown and entered into evidence, not things IMAGINARY. Revelation is fine, but is no substitute for actual manuscripts. This is easy for almost anyone to understand. "The fact that the devil was the one who cleverly obscured and scrambled the originals, does not daunt these academia students. They think they can match wits with the devil and win." The poor scholarship that can lead to statements like this are endemic to people whose lack of study led to cutting corners. vpw pulled this, and his sychophants follow along blindly- even though average students have no trouble understanding how false this is. This is the internet age, Anyone can find proof that the originals were not "scrambled", nor "obscured" nor "unreliable" nor "tattered remnants." Anyone looking through the Masoretic text and the Samaritan Pentateuch can see that the OT is remarkably well-preserved. Anyone comparing the contents of the Cairo Genizah to modern Texts can see that the NT is remarkably well-preserved- at least in Greek. (But not in Aramaic.) "In the early days of VPW's research he knew he had to start with senses approach, or method (A). But God's assurance to him was that when he did his best and was getting stuck, the revelation would be there to get him over the hump. " No, vpw plagiarized Bullinger and others, and made it sound as if he'd actually done research into the manuscripts. He NEVER studied them. He studied HOMILETICS, how to preach, which is an incredibly soft option compared to Bible history, Bible languages, study of manuscripts..... The "God's assurance" part is ASSUMED- based on the authority he claimed and the integrity of which he was bankrupt. We used to take his word for things before we learned it was worthless and lacked integrity. "As time went by, it became useful to "prove" these little leaps of revelation to others to help them in their believing. Occasionally finding a manuscript that verified what God had told him would make it easier to teach others. It would also help VPW's believing for the next round of research." No. As time went by, twi gathered people who could actually study the manuscripts. So, vpw- who lacked facility with them and even lacked real understanding of their contents- would occasionally send one of his in-house experts on a fools errand to find imaginary manuscripts that "must" exist- since he wanted some manuscript SOMEWHERE to say what he WANTED it to say. Furthermore, sending them to look over the manuscripts to see what they could learn could yield something valuable, something he could monetize, something he could claim God Almighty revealed to him. "There were a few other reasons for this kind of Verification Research being useful. Something to remember is this. Finding a manuscript that verifies what VPW already had committed to DOES NOT PROVE that VPW was right in that prior commitment. But it does help make it easier to believe. " It was a fools errand that did NOT turn up the imaginary manuscripts that agreed with vpw. He admitted as much in the previous quote. "There are ALL KINDS of manuscripts out there and hardly any ways to figure out how valid each one is. It is all guesswork. Sometimes it can be a well educated piece of guesswork. But without revelation, all Biblical research is really guesswork, especially when you factor in that the devil intelligently scrambled things for us." That's an astonishingly- ignorant quote. It's easy to prove otherwise now, between books easy to acquire, and documentation available online 24/7. There's entire fields of study, and how one manuscript is rated above another is clear- and it is hard work. That's what distinguishes vpw from the researchers in another way- vpw always skipped the hard work. But learning HOW manuscripts are rated is NOT hard. It is painstakingly done, and anything BUT "guesswork." All of that isn't terrible shocking from someone whose final word on things is "the limits of what vpw taught." vpw's notable IGNORANCE of the entire field was covered by his dismissal of the entire field. Seeing people STILL doing that is a shame, and they can avoid it easily. And most people do.