Mike

I don't have enough data on them to show you major complications that preclude a simple pure evil or pure good model. What do you think about the data I DID give you regarding complicated lives? Do you have a complicated life? Sometimes my complications go in waves. For a year or two I'll be more complicated, and then swing (sometimes quickly) into being less complicated. I guess that's an added complication in itself.

Judas is another one I know about. (Sorry, don't know them all you listed.) When Jesus sent out the 12 Judas was one of them. He healed people and cast out spirits. He witnessed to the truth. He also had a stealing problem, and a few others. Then, even after his worst actions, God offers him eternal life at Pentecost. Judas was complicated.

I often think about King Saul. When he was anointed he must have done a lot of good to get that distinction. Look at the anguish David went through, yet did not kill him when he had the chance. He recognized that Saul, at that time, still was to be respected. Then look at the anguish David himself caused years later. I don’t hold a Pure Good model of David. I imagine there were lots of boundary excursions prior to his problems with Bathsheba. I imagine David had to callous his conscience for a long time, like years, to get to the point of doing what he did to Uriah and Uriah’s and Bathsheba’s family. David is a very complicated man of good and evil. We only see an abbreviated account of his life in scripture. Paul said this of himself in Romans 7, that he was a complicated mix of good and evil. I imagine there were a few grieving relatives who’s worst nightmare was Paul repenting and becoming a Christian and saying “Bless you” to them. Peter’s sin was subtle in our human minds, but a great disappointment to God. Wasn’t Peter’s first time either. Yay! He finally got it together at the end and came back to Paul’s epistles. People are complicated. Only simple model I know of is Jesus Christ. He had have a Father other than Adam for that.

Actually, I think my calling out the Pure Evil model is not yet understood. I see it as a suspension of critical thinking. It's a lazy model. It's just too complicated to think that a human can be capable of great evil, and then turn around the next day and do great good. That's COMPLICATED! That's way too complicated when dealing with a human being's life spanning decades and ending decades ago. Yet, within myself, I know the complications, and I know I can do both. Did you see those two links on how others have analyzed similarly the this evil villain stuff in sports, politics, and fairy tales? There's a great economy of thought that a Pure Evil model allows, but it also can occlude some vital aspects of real human lives if used too much, for too long.

I had a goal, but seriously downsized it when I saw things weren't as I expected. Instead of heavy posting, I am reading more, and I am learning what's happened at TWI the past 10 years as well as here. Right now I'm also trying to see how possible it is to have a seriously downsized presence here versus a zero presence. What are your thoughts regarding that possibility?

I read your link. Is that the same thing that WW referenced?

I'm missing a lot of points. There are a lot of ideas flying back and forth here. Is it (Concorde) related to the fallacy Word Wolf was talking about? I never memorized any names of these things.

May I suggest you try hitting me again, but with just one question? That's how people have conversations. I have a question for you: what is your goal with this? Do you see a realizable goal?

I agree. Rocky, you nailed it in an earlier post also, saying it is human nature. This thread is fascinating to me. Before my involvement with the ministry I was on fire with researching the phenomenon of lying. I mean even to the point of making crude lie detectors at home. I was in touch with scientists who were top polygraph experts. Later in life I hung around with brain scientists who often dealt with what they call "confabulation" where various varieties of brain damage can cause a victim to lie profusely and way beyond credulity. In pursuing my interest in writing and language I noticed that lying is woven into our use of language (English at least) in a strange way. There are FAR more words in our vocabulary that describe the spectrum of lying than anyone would ever guess. We are literally entrenched in it. I am trying to anticipate how Artificial Intelligence will deal with lying. Meanwhile I appreciate all the perspectives offered here so far.

I found how I responded earlier: You are right there. [referring to "I think you really don't see it."] I was SO much not using as an argument element, that I did not and still do not see what you are talking about. I was merely offering my disbelief that so many here could have such false expectations of the what they can talk me into. My hat's off to Rocky for seeing what I meant. You got my curiosity up now, though. Give me the elementary lesson on it. I don't know what I logic steps went befor it, all I knew was my exasperation at cartoon simpleton models of how life and belief works.

I understand this. Never heard of that name, though. There are times when I look on this idea for fine tuning my guidance systems. I am well aware of it. I have a dear old friend who was recently scammed by Internet romance con artists. He felt had invested too much money in "her" to give up while the scam was raging. But then again, that same amount of investment was peanuts compared to the huge dollar promised payoff when her fortune becomes available. I tried to get him to see what was happening for over 5 years. He lost everything. By contrast, I have enjoyed some of the promised benefits already, and more are building. Now, there IS an investment in my life that I need to cut my losses on. It's posting here.

You may have missed my request for more of an explanation. I believe your sincerity here. But, again, I'm not trying to persuade with logic here. Just expressing my feelings. My feelings with So_crates are getting to the point I doubt if we can have a civil conversation. I'm thankful for your reaching out. Rocky too.

Yes. There are times when that is proper.... then again... times not. Yes. I do look at what ACTIVITIES that I am engaged in to asses the fundamental life principles I've implemented. What I do NOT do is engage the associations other's here have with certain passages of the text, and I certainly don't manufacture associations whole scale, like I've seen done with the David/Bathsheba/Uriah/Nathan story.

Actually, there were few 12 years ago, and some I'm still in touch with. But then we will just have to argue about the numbers. And I'm too weary for that. I tried to answer a lot of your questions. Can you be happy with that? I'm trying to find a nice conversational way we can wrap all this up and I can fade into the woodwork. So, So_crates, how do we wrap this up? We're going around in circles. Maybe we should just leave it to: I'm miserable and unhappy. I can be happy with that.

Ok. I hear you, and read the whole thing. I can’t blame you, and wish you well with those whom you are able to help. Just to clarify, I'm very familiar with critical thinking, and in many areas besides religion. I applied critical thinking to everything PFAL and TWI from my start in the ministry, all through my stay, and then for ten more years past my exit. In fact, I often regretted how much I withdrew from commitments because of this critical thinking. I often thought I was flakey and sometimes leaders would reinforce that self doubt. I was very careful in how I slowly made commitments, and was able to withdraw when commitments were not right or changing. I agree critical thinking is good, and somehow I dodged it being taken away from me. I did leave HQ after a little more than 2 years, and I resisted leaderships requests that I stay until the ROA changeover of personnel. I left in May, they wanted me to stay to August. I was an independent critical thinker, and it often got me in trouble. It was only in 1998 that I suspended my critical thinking (in one area only) due to many persuasive factors. One of the least profound, but most practical of these factors was I had hit 50 years old and thought my search should be over, and I should just knuckle down and focus on disciplining my mind to the one best presentation of truth for the rest of my life. I had found a system that worked and was bigger than me. It was just written PFAL. *** Suspending critical thinking happens in science. When a law is discovered that’s what it means; the law is bowed down to instead of criticized as possibly not true. The discovery of a law is a rare event, though. Most of the time critical thinking is useful. But once a law is found, the criticism turns to total homage. A similar thing holds for a closed mind. Usually a closed mind is not so good a practice. Searching for truth requires an open mind. However, once truth IS found (for one element) then an open mind here can only allow in error. Closed minds in limited areas sometimes are good. If you find something that is a law, and is perfect, please let me know. I found something perfect, and I let people know.

I can forget the issue if she can, and maybe eve if she can't. Going back and re-reading all that tangled mess is not something I care to do, but speak to her with civility I'm sure I can do. She's the one who stormed off. I'm not angry any more. That was DAYS ago, was it not?.

So how shall we end this? You want me to roll over and join you in all your misery? You really do look miserable with the Pure Evil model. I'm happy with my text. How shall we end it? I wonder if I'll cave? ...I wonder.

Thomas said: Mike, my Christ is present inside of me, and in the sacrament of Holy Communion/Eucharist. So He isn't absent, no matter what Wierwille, Bullinger, or other Christian authors say. Touche! ***** Mike said: That's a different kind of presence you describe than kind his apostles experienced prior to the ascension. And surely you look forward to his BEST kind of presence at his Return? His parousia presense should be better that what we have now, which is very good. I'm not saying that what you enjoy now is deficient. God thinks it's good. But he's not present now like he was then and not like he will be some day soon. ***** Rocky said: Now you're talking as if YOU know what's right and Thomas is wrong. That was a YUGE problem with Wierwille and the cult he started. He got everyone (who bought into the cult) thinking he and therefore they were the only ones who are ever right. Your god is too small. Let him out of the box of your puny human imagination. ***** Mike said: On second reading of Thomas’ post I see now he was only talking of one type of Christ within. Originally I thought he was posting that he had 2: Col 1:27 and Communion. Now it looks like only one, on second reading. So, Rocky, your first line to me may have merit. If Thomas is talking about a NON-pfal concept like the bodily presence of Christ in communion, then I would have to completely re-word my response to him. I was responding to him as a pfal grad in pfal terminology. Within that perspective I think I am right, and that the post-Ascension, pre-Return presence of Christ with us personally is a diminished presence, or an ab-sent condition compared to sent. For Thomas to compare (with a Touche) his notion of Christ within with the pfal version is a WHOLE new topic. *** As for your other comments, my God is big enough to let me entertain notions of other religions for comparison. As it is, my RC background gave me great familiarity with the bread form of Christ within. I regard that as a dead end, and choose not to waste time there.

******************************************************* Mike said: No, he’s not my hero and I don't worship him. So_crates said: Really, so why all the excuses for his evil behavior? Why tag everyone with "The Pure Evil" model. Sure signs of hero worship Mike said: I have never offered such excuses. When a person is wrong they are wrong. I choose not to dive in and try to document every minute of VPW’s life looking for sin. I choose not to participate with those who do. I know that God can and will forgive much faster and easier than we humans can do it. When we admit, agree, say the same thing that something is off the Word, God restores fellowship and can work with us again. The Pure Evil model used here is a lazy oversimplification that defies reality and drifts into cartoon land. It completely overlooks how easy and free it is to get back into fellowship with God. Here are a couple of articles on the same human mechanics involved in the Pure Evil model for VPW, but applied by different people in areas other than religion: ThePatriots Aren't Evil. They're Just Losers. – Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-05/the-patriots-aren-t-evil-they-re-just-losers *** The good guy/bad guy myth - Catherine Nichols, Aeon Essays. — Jump The Fence http://www.jumpthefence.com/news-2/2018/1/31/the-good-guybad-guy-myth-catherine-nichols-aeon-essays this link is a hop-scotch link to the full article, and tricky. Here is another link to tha same article: https://cuencahighlife.com/good-guys-and-bad-guys-why-is-pop-culture-so-obsessed-with-making-the-distinction/ ******************************************************* Mike said: The main thing I get from VPW is the "end of the road" for researching certain Bible verses. My focus is what happened 2000 years when Jesus Christ was first sent, and then ab-sent by God. I intensely look for him to soon be re-sent. So_crates said: So Christ in you doesn't count as Christ being present? Mike said: You just don’t seem to want to get it. It all in how we define “presence.” Are you saying that the Christ in you is just as good as his presence with the Apostles just prior to the Ascension? Are you saying that the Christ in you is just as good as his presence will be at his Return? If we define “present” with those pre-Ascension and post-Return qualities, then NO the Christ in you is NOT as “present” as that definition. Re-define “presence” down a little and then your Christ in you looks a lot better. But then his pre-Ascension and post-Return presence is mottled in the background. I think you and those who object to the “absent Christ” are not engaging in accurate logical conversation, but merely wielding loyalty slogans in parade formation. I love “Christ in you the hope of glory.” So, why hope if we got all of that “presence” now? ******************************************************* Mike said: There’s always so much uncertainty when reading a version of the Bible, and a difficult or intriguing verse often comes up. What certainty can be had when other versions say slightly or even radically different things? So_crates said: The uncertainty is with you. Most of the people in this forum don't have that problem. Mike said: Look at the footnotes at the bottom of the Greek Interlinear to glimpse some uncertainty. Then add to that the uncertainties of translating to English and transporting from Biblical culture to modern culture. Lots of middle men, lots of differing opinions = uncertainty. Name a verse that's translated radically different ways. Mike said: My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? ******************************************************* Mike said: Then the uncertainty increases as we look at the semi-older Critical Greek manuscripts in the footnotes of a Greek Interlinear version. Then, one never knows when they will discover an ancient manuscript that pulls the whole rug our from under what was thought to be certain. Biblical research has no 5 o’clock whistle telling you “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! YOU’VE REACHED THE END. YOU FOUND THE ANSWER. STOP RESEARCHING NOW, BECAUSE IT WILL ONLY DRIFT YOU AWAY FROM THE TRUTH YOU FOUND.” So_crates said: We've already found manuscripts by contemporary authors that have sent the Saint Vic house of cards crashing down. After all, he stole the text from them. Mike said: It looks like you missed my point. I was describing how uncertain all Biblical research can be. We never even know when to stop, it’s so uncertain. The only way Biblical research can find the truth, slogging through the adversary’s scrambling, is with God’s guidance. ******************************************************* Mike said: There’s just so much uncertainty in reading scholarly offerings (all Bible versions) and it’s a never ending process of checking up on things. I'm at the stage in my life where I'm weary of searching, and I just want something to discipline my mind to. So_crates said: But somehow Saint Vic solved it all, and by robbing texts from evryone of those scholarly offerings your putting down, no less. Mike said: No, his solution was to give up in 1942. God had another plan in mind. God had been working with those other authors all along and set it up for VPW and for us to get blessed by it all. We would have never heard of all those ideas had it not been for the class. VPW knew how to distribute it. ******************************************************* Mike said: What I get from VPW is not a personal hero at all, but a text where I can say THIS is IT, no more searching, become this Word. I don’t get that from any version of the Bible alone, because they are not authoritative. So_crates said: Not authoritive in you mind. As many bible quotes on stealing, on not forcing yourself on women, and on not continuing in sin are repeatedly ignored by you. What's odd is many of these verses you ignore are also found in PLAF. Mike said: No. I not only don’t ignore them, I apply them where I can, to my own life and not to someone else’s. When I was RC part of the requirements for forgiveness from God was a prayer including the words “I firmly resolve, with the help of God’s grace, to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin.” Checking on-line I just found out there are MANY different versions of The Act of Contrition, but my quote is what I was taught in the 1950s. That was the hardest part of RC confession… to FIRMLY resolve… I sweated that word “firmly” out every single Saturday from age 6 to age 19, through the hurricane rages of puberty. The second hardest part about gong to Saturday Confession is the beginning of the prayer: “…I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee…” Again, I sweated it out whether my sorrow was deep enough (heartily) and directed enough, not so much for few of hell, but for having OFFENDED my God. It was hard. I was SO relieved to see that the scriptures never made such a demands for forgiveness, other than just admitting it, agree with, say the same thing, homologeo. ******************************************************* Mike said: I believe God made a sinner His authorized agent to deliver His Word to us sinners. I like that. I’m not so sure I’d accept any other agent. If God gave us His Word via a goodie-goodie guy we'd just end up worshiping him. I like it that He pulled it off with a sinner, because it keeps us all humble. We all knew from I John 1:8,10 that all ministers have sin. What kind of sin? Stealing nickel candy bars from the dime store? Before my first year in the ministry was completed I was glad to hear at the end of the Rock of Ages that VPW was not a goodie goodie and that we all were downers and outers together. I like that. I can relate to that. So_crates said: Saying Saint Vic sinned is like saying sharks eat. We're not talking about nicking candy bars, we're talking about doing things that hurt and do psychological damage to other people. But hey he's your hero, so he has an all purpose excuse. And let's all forget Romans 6:1b-2: Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. Paul didn't say go ahead sin, after all, it's all grace. So how many times is a sin acceptable? Well, Saint Vic answered that. How many chances did he give a person before a face melting? Before they were marked and avoided? Mike said: God keeps track of those numbers for other people. I do my best to simply minimize my own failings. ******************************************************* Mike said: But I’m in it MOSTLY for the text. So_crates said: Then why don't you quote the text? Your more than happy to offer text from the Book of Bad Excuses for Saint Vic, but when it comes to quoting text from PLAF its crickets and tumbleweeds. Mike said: I quoted many texts, both Bible verses and PFAL passages here 10 byears ago, and then again last year. I stopped that. It was too much. It was too “in your face” for people, so I quit. I switched to this conversational style to be less intrusive. If you really need any quotes, let me know, and I’ll see what I can do. It’s also a lot of work find all the quotes and prepare them for posting. ******************************************************* Mike said: What I get from VPW is some text that is solid and won’t change. So_crates said: No, what you get from Saint Vic is an excuse to stop searching. Mike said: No, again. My stopping searching first happened during the ministry meltdown 1986-1990. During the 90s I was befuddled by all my heros dropping one by one. I mean top ministry leaders that had been so smart in the good years, but after POP they were all mushbrained and nasty. I reached the same point that VPW had reached in 1942, ready to give up, but I did not realize it at the time at all. VPW was surprised and halted his abandonment on hearing God’s promise. For me, I was surprised in 1998 to see things in the books that had eluded me, and in a few months I realized that God had ended the uncertainty for me. What I got from written PFAL in 1998 was a reason to start researching again, this time researching within PFAL. Before I had clumsily tried to research the ancient manuscripts with PFAL as a strong (but not only) guide. But now I can elegantly research the collaterals seeing English is my native tongue. ******************************************************* Mike said: The issues I look for in both versions and in PFAL are: The return of Christ, Abraham’s believing against hope or turning his hope into believing, Peter’s return to the epistles of Paul, The end-of-life scripture party Paul announced in II Timothy with Mark and Luke. I’m also interested in Moses sin, Paul caught away to the third heaven, Paul’s handling of intellectuals in Acts 17. I think the PFAL text is totally sanitized. So_crates said: Which is your right. But its not sanitized. As you've seen its corrupted with pre-emptive strikes, excuses for bad behavior, and text stolen from other people who did all the work Mike said: John S of the old CES thought similarly. So_crates said: Don't care what John S thinks, he's not here. Mike said: You should care. If it weren’t for his releasing the adultery paper we probably would not be here posting. That aside, you should also care it he (and socks) saw no such pre-emptive strike diddies (PSD). From hios adultery paper you should know that he’s an expert on what did actually pre-emtptively corrupt minds on the subject of sex. I’m talking about the Appendixes to the adultery paper. Those dealt with the real PSDs of the ministry: the 14 excuses or rationalizations mostly guys used on girls. Those PSDs were everwhere. A few years before the JS paper on adultery I was a twig leader and we had a need to deal with those same PSDs. We handled 9 of them I think. But NONE of us ever saw what you folks see in the PFAL David and Bathsheba story. That is you folks taking the Pure Evil model off to la la land. It’s all in your heads. You need some cleaning. ******************************************************* Mike said: People who lived off the texts living far from TWI interference have no complaints of the devil spirits which posters here see in there like the David and Bathsheba account. So_crates said: So your accusing others of having devil spirits, yet you can't see the devil spirits in Saint Vic? What was that you were saying about spiritual sniffers a few posts back? Mike said: For those OVERSENSITIVE about being called possessed, I added an implied word to my original post. The devil spirits I referred to are the PSDs documented above. You folks look at PFAL texts for boogie men and PSDs reminds me of LCM looking at a poor sap who mad the mistake of singing out loud a Broadway Show Tune You wrote: “yet you can't see the devil spirits in Saint Vic?” Really! I’m supposed to operate a manifestation of the spirit by reading posts here to administer to situations that happened a thousand miles and 35 years ago? No. I can’t see that well. Now, you've spent how much bandwidth on trying to prove to yourself you have no hero worship for Saint Vic. Did it work? You didn't prove anything to me. Mike said: Wasn’t trying to prove anything. Just answering a few questions.

No, he’s not my hero and I don't worship him. What I'm looking at intensely with focus is not VPW, nor pictures of him, nor recordings of his voice, not do I muse over events in his life, nor events where I was with him personally. That’s all minor stuff in my head, and sometimes years can go by with nothing going on in those categories. The main thing I get from VPW is the "end of the road" for researching certain Bible verses. My focus is what happened 2000 years when Jesus Christ was first sent, and then ab-sent by God. I intensely look for him to soon be re-sent. There’s always so much uncertainty when reading a version of the Bible, and a difficult or intriguing verse often comes up. What certainty can be had when other versions say slightly or even radically different things? Then the uncertainty increases as we look at the semi-older Critical Greek manuscripts in the footnotes of a Greek Interlinear version. Then, one never knows when they will discover an ancient manuscript that pulls the whole rug our from under what was thought to be certain. Biblical research has no 5 o’clock whistle telling you “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! YOU’VE REACHED THE END. YOU FOUND THE ANSWER. STOP RESEARCHING NOW, BECAUSE IT WILL ONLY DRIFT YOU AWAY FROM THE TRUTH YOU FOUND.” There’s just so much uncertainty in reading scholarly offerings (all Bible versions) and it’s a never ending process of checking up on things. I'm at the stage in my life where I'm weary of searching, and I just want something to discipline my mind to. What I get from VPW is not a personal hero at all, but a text where I can say THIS is IT, no more searching, become this Word. I don’t get that from any version of the Bible alone, because they are not authoritative. I believe God made a sinner His authorized agent to deliver His Word to us sinners. I like that. I’m not so sure I’d accept any other agent. If God gave us His Word via a goodie-goodie guy we'd just end up worshiping him. I like it that He pulled it off with a sinner, because it keeps us all humble. We all knew from I John 1:8,10 that all ministers have sin. What kind of sin? Stealing nickel candy bars from the dime store? Before my first year in the ministry was completed I was glad to hear at the end of the Rock of Ages that VPW was not a goodie goodie and that we all were downers and outers together. I like that. I can relate to that. But I’m in it MOSTLY for the text. What I get from VPW is some text that is solid and won’t change. The issues I look for in both versions and in PFAL are: The return of Christ, Abraham’s believing against hope or turning his hope into believing, Peter’s return to the epistles of Paul, The end-of-life scripture party Paul announced in II Timothy with Mark and Luke. I’m also interested in Moses sin, Paul caught away to the third heaven, Paul’s handling of intellectuals in Acts 17. I think the PFAL text is totally sanitized. John S of the old CES thought similarly. People who lived off the texts living far from TWI interference have no complaints of the devil spirits posters here see in there like the David and Bathsheba account. Remember the softened approach suggested here by socks the other day on that.

Sorry. I've lost track of what that was.

I just wanted to bring this back up. Things get lost here, at least to me. That post by socks I totally missed. I think he brought in a lot of reason and accurate memories.

That's a different kind of presence you describe than kind his apostles experienced prior to the ascension. And surely you look forward to his BEST kind of presence at his Return? His parousia presense should be better that what we have now, which is very good. I'm not saying that what you enjoy now is deficient. God thinks it's good. But he's not present now like he was then and not like he will be some day soon.

You are right there. I was SO much not using as an argument element, that I did not and still do not see what you are talking about. I was merely offering my disbelief that so many here could have such false expectations of the what they can talk me into. My hat's off to Rocky for seeing what I meant. You got my curiosity up now, though. Give me the elementary lesson on it. I don't know what I logic steps went befor it, all I knew was my exasperation at cartoon simpleton models of how life and belief works.