Mike

Here's an example of missing or forgotten data. When I found VPW's very last teaching I did informal polls on who had heard of this last teaching versus who thought "The Hope" was his last teaching. I forget the data, but posted it long ago. It was something like 90% of non-Corps grads knew nothing of his very last teaching. For Corps about 60% knew nothing or remembered nothing at first. A few remembered it after discussing it with them, but had totally forgotten it prior. In the clergy 10% were clueless on this last teaching. Nearly all these grads had exited TWI.

I hear you and am much more on to than now. As I mentioned immediately above (in greater detail) to So_crates, my battle was to post missed or forgotten material in the face of intense opposition. At that time logical proofs were a low priority of mine. Besides, very few profound, significant thing can ever be proved. Most proofs are of small and/or relatively insignificant things. There was never any question that I had found a vast amount of missed or forgotten data.

You may have missed some of the questions I have asked here. Some of them represent the frontiers of some of my theories. When I see holes I radically revise. One of my theories that I see proved over and over is that we older grads either missed or forgot a lot of crucial material. I found this out in 1998, soon after I came back to the writings. I first saw lots of things I had missed or forgotten. In my excitement to tell my friends I found out that they too had missed or forgotten much also. After a few years of this I came, ah... er ... I was dragged here and I found the same exact thing: crucial things were missed or forgotten. My chosen battle was to to post the material that was missed of forgotten in spite of the opposition. I succeeded 12 years ago, and I was starting to succeed again when I noticed things were not nearly as calmed down (both here and TWI) as I had expected after a 10 year absence. I saw a hole in my strategy, and radically revised.

I try to choose my battles wisely. That implies evading unwise battles.

Thanks again, RottieGirl. So_crates and WordWolf my answer and the verses I implied are the pretty standard explanation of this. Why not check out the official lines of some large churches And see what they say in their official commentaries. I don't think there is anything controversial about what we got in the class on this. That's what I meant by the verses lining up nicely. This little subtopic (all men liars; Jesus not liar) is not contested by anyone as far as I know.

They posted my words verbatim. One posted large passages of my text. Other posters were jeering and misrepresenting my words. I was being "debated" without me posting a single word here. It went on for weeks. In that sense I was dragged into the fight. I'm doing my best to end it now.

A note on evasion. If you ever conduct a campaign trying to transmit a large body of complex data, you will understand this more intimately. Resistance to such a campaign often comes in the form of questions, loaded questions, and pointed questions. These kinds of questions can (and should be) regarded by a campaigner as “evasions” in themselves. They help the “listeners” evade and undermine the message. They are designed to kill the campaign. Evading such questions should be regarded as a noble necessity by the campaigner who wants to make progress. To pretend that most of the questions to me are not in this mode of total rejection is laughable. There are other good reasons to evade. There are a few areas where questions to me start to get a little more personal than I care to get in public. Things like the application of doctrine to my personal life, along with my history of successes and failures all require a lot of private context to reveal cogently. Several times I indicated to you and others that I was available in PMs for some of the more delicate issues. I think those hints were totally lost in the shuffle. You might look at yourself for some of our miscommunications.

You are right. I had a small part, but was still totally broadsided. I had some friendly phone conversations and some e-mail with a former member of TWI’s research department. As it turned out he was also a poster here. He was surprised by my thesis. I can understand that. We never fought over it, just civil disagreement. So far I'm totally innocent. Meanwhile I was contacting others by e-mail whom I knew in order to discuss my thesis. It was new to me then. One was an old Corps Rev buddy. We exchanged many letters. One of his letters to me was also a mass mailing to his mostly Corps friends. I made the mistake of cold calling on a few of them, sending them by e-mail a few of my introductions to my thesis. That was where I went a little into the territory of “asking for it.” One of them was a poster here. But I had no idea how much I had asked for. I was a non-posting reader here from GS’s beginning. Suddenly two threads were started about me by those two posters. I watched the threads come and go and pondered for weeks what to do about it. I came in under cover, but my disguise didn’t last long, and the fist fights started. I guess my second mistake is I knew it was going to be that way. I’m very purposely not naming names in the interests of peace.

Twinky, It occurred to me that I should offer you an explanation for some of combative style that I am now learning how to jettison, in favor of normal conversation. You and most of the active posters here probably know nothing of how it happened that I started posting in 2002. Combative was the name of the game at that early date here. GreaseSpot calmed down a lot by 2007 or so when I left. But in 2002 I was literally dragged onto the board fights by 2 posters against my will, and without my consent. It was an immense fight, and lasted years. But I’m not kidding or exaggerating: I was literally dragged here, and people were punching and kicking at my personal letters and phone calls several weeks BEFORE my first post. Long story. Posted text of details somewhere. In respect to those who were hurt in the TWI machine, and still being hurt, I want no fights at all here. I’m learning how to offer what I’ve learned about the whole TWI machine without fighting and provoking bad memories. I noticed on another thread the other day an old friend (somewhat proPFAL) posting, and mingling pretty well with other posters. He offered his opinion and there seemed to be no fight. In his wisdom he’s completely avoided the threads I’m on for all these months I’ve been here. I want to learn from his wisdom. I think he’s still somewhat pro-pfal. Lower case intended. I was also humbled by the kind, soft words of socks a few days ago. That’s how I want to interact here, if at all.

What's most clear is that Jesus never violated the Law of Moses. I do not know what kind of lying might be forbidden in there. I do know that there's a very wide spectrum of what is a lie or a white lie. It's much bigger than most know.

I thought that's what Twinky was asking for. The original intent was small IMO compared to some of the immediate demands.

Thank you. I appreciate fine tuning. I can only vaguely remember something about "second" but I think it's unimportant for this thread. I have many Bible versions.

You're right. I totally forgot the topic for days now. I wanted to answer everyone's questions, and got lost in the process. But from the repetitions that are occurring, I think we're done with answering questions also. I've been working on changing my style and holding my tongue, not posting many quotes and verses, no longer having a planned agenda that I blast along with. I'm paying attention to what people are thinking more. As the number of posts I have to deal with diminishes, that paying of attention can become more efficient. There are a lot of topics I can actually contribute on without throwing a lot of emotional triggers around. If any mods want to lock this thread I'd be happy with it.

Here is Rocky's answer: "Occam's razor would suggest that regardless of whether JC ever lied, "All people are liars" retains it's veracity. It's a generalization that is accurate. IF JC never lied, it could rightfully be said that he would be the exception that proves the rule." I agree. My answer adds to this the reason WHY Jesus Christ is the exception or can be an exception. Yes, the verse is a generalization, and a valid one. If you check what other churches say they will have all the above, PLUS the verses. Grace Valarie Claire, do you know the verses that are connected to this? Paul and the second Adam? *** This lying thing is a fundamental issue in life and the Word. Very few have sorted through all that entails. Brain science is looking at lying a lot with fancy imaging equipment like never before. From the scientific point of view "All men are liars" is a much bigger deal than might be expected. Human lying pops up in a lot of medical areas where it is called "confabulation" to soften it for brain damage victims. Human lying is a fundamental part of our mechanisms for consciousnesses. It is a VERY intriguing subject. It's one of the few subjects where science and the Bible agree far more than is commonly known. My first post here at GS 15 years ago was on the this verse and it's implications with TWI.

I'd be very interested if you ever find a better one. What do you find wrong with it?

Thank you, RottieGirl. What I answered was pretty much straight from Paul's epistles. Some of the terminology I used is PFAL, but the verses line up very nicely. I'll bet thousands of churches answer it the same way I did. Addendum - the same word is used for "man" and for "Adam."

I differ on this. Meanwhile I am trying to stuff myself into the compartment you have me in, offering a false dilemma rationalization. That's a little bizarre. I said 3 times I was not in that logic-compartment when I made those comments, but I want to see what you are saying there anyway. But the Pure Evil model is SO MUCH embraced here that you'd have to step aside, take a vacation, to see it. Last year I noticed that many (not all) Trump haters were pretty much in the same mode thought: a purely evil model of Trump was all they could see and talk about. I also noticed it in sports. How could two baseball friends root for the same team for one season, and then suddenly hate each other when it's football season and the root for opposing teams. In sports it's a kind of faux hate, It tells me there's a need that the hate is fulfilling. It's the need for a simple, all-evil villain. I'm not the only one to notice this in our culture. These two articles have been posted a few times, but no one wants to comment on them. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-05/the-patriots-aren-t-evil-they-re-just-losers https://cuencahighlife.com/good-guys-and-bad-guys-why-is-pop-culture-so-obsessed-with-making-the-distinction/ I think that there is SO LITTLE resistance to many ideas here that some ideas become crowned as king without much scrutiny, and the Pure Evil cartoon model of VPW is one of them. If you had more bold posters who were and still are blessed by PFAL then maybe you’d all wouldn’t have swallowed it hook line and sinker. Like the authors of those articles, I think it’s laziness.

Thanks for the refreshing, Allan. My thinking is that it only works for people who have been lucky or resourceful enough to carefully separate the written teachings from all the administrative and supplemental baggage that was intertwined with it. The taste of TWI can ruin anything.

Did that answer your question?

Jesus Christ is the exception because he was not of Adam's bloodline. He was not "of Adam" or "of the man." I'd translate the verse "All of Adam [the man] are infused with lies." This is an ownership issue. The adversary owns Adam's race. Jesus Christ is the second Adam, and never was owned by the adversary, the liar-in-chief.

Not fully. But thanks for asking. What I was saying is that EVEN if I'm totally wrong in relying so much on PFAL, it's not reasonable for posters to expect I'd drop it so easily as from few hundred posts in debate. THAT'S IT! I was exasperated at that cartoon naivete. I wondered at how many other unreasonable cartoon mind images some might have. The Pure evil model comes to mind. Off to the side, I'm not addicted to food. I do need it's benefits, but I don't regard that an addiction. Now if I saw lots of bad side effects of one food I ate a lot of, and I couldn't quit, THEN I'd call that addiction.

Not smug. If I couldn't live with it I wouldn't have posted it. Anything else you want to talk about before we end this?

I can live with that.

I honestly believe you'll never believe in my honesty.

context: I didn't know them to be complicated