On 7/7/2017 at 3:38 PM, Thomas Loy Bumgarner said:
Yeah, Rich, You are supporting Bibliolatry, The Bible should be worshipped above God or Jesus. Rhema relates to grammar/literature which the Bible is, not Logos which is spiritual wisdom/God
Leave it to the scholars, Christian scholars no less, to come up with a psychosis for those who study the Bible! Well God bless, I love them anyway.
I read the article in Wiki. Not much scripture, but I guess that would defeat the purpose of the article.
OK. Let's say it's not rhema., but logos, as I understand you are saying. Where do you go for logos? Where does one find...all things that pertain unto life and godliness...(2 Peter 1:3)? I've never even read that anywhere but the rhema. Where is it in the logos? I'm always open to discovering new truths. Up to now I've always gone to the rhema for them. Are there others in logos somewhere I'm not aware of?
When you give something new a name, it's like you're creating something, by giving it meaning and distinguishing it from the chaos.
Kinda neat considering how cults come up with their own terminology to redefine the world and experience.
You describe these "gifts of the spirt" and *POOF* . . . there they are . . . mixing already known stuff into improper categories and calling it SOMETHING.
Also . . . pretty cool . . . you imply its opposite at that same moment of creation . . . you know . . . debil spurts
Which leads me to a story about He-Man and The Advanced Class (Not the actual Advanced Class, those booster classes that come after, did they have a name??)
Not a good story. Still trying to think of the name of an object. I see it in my mind but I can't seem to find the word for it. . . And it will feel more real when I think of the word. Kinda weird, huh?
Remember "conduit for the adversary"? The Hell was that?
Evil freak flows through certain objects you shouldn't own, because, you know, you shouldn't own them.
So here we all are constantly cleaning in our detail minded way to keep the Adversary out.
Just, perceiving evil where a normal person would not. Cause, nothing is perfect. But don't tell THEM that.
And in that Totalitarian System, The Leader is the soul of the people, and each of us is responsible for that.
So, gather together all your favorite objects, and burn them.
WW, LG is correct, and I'd hardly characterize him as a VPW apologist. I'd call him objective.
VPW had ocular melanoma, which frequently metastasizes to the liver and, when it does, often causes death. It didn't start in his liver and spread to his eye, but vice versa. This is significant, because different types of cancers have different, specific secondary sites they spread to.
A major risk factor for ocular (uveal) melanoma is overexposure to ultraviolet light. I read one study in which welders, for example, were found to have a high rate of this particular cancer. David Anderson, who is far, far from a VPW apologist, was involved in the filming of PFAL and attests to the fact that VPW's eyes were severely burned during the filming by the bright lights used on the set. People with blue eyes and fair hair, such as VPW, are also more vulnterable to ocular cancer.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with defending VPW and everything to do with keeping the facts straight.
Linda, my mind is made-up; I don't need facts! Just kidding! No seriously Linda, I think you are right. Please, let's stick to facts, and not give our PI.
VP's plagiarism would get any high school or college student an F on the paper or course, and would get a prof censured or fired. So how can anyone defend VP for doing even worse?
But there is a deeper issue here. In PFAL (class and book p. 119-120) VP makes a big deal about saying he took his 3,000 books to the dump and studied the Bible alone.
Then in the intro to RTHST VP plainly said that he "put aside all I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook." He is clearly saying that he did not use any other book in writing RTHST. Yet, most of the book is plainly plagiarized. This is a bald-faced lie.
VP never once in RTHST ever mentions the name of Stiles or Bullinger, who he stole most of RTHST from. In the earlier 3rd ed. the intro vaguely mentions that VP met a man who taught him something (Stiles, but you'd only know this if you knew the part of the story VP was hiding). But all later editions delete this and instead say that VP used the Bible alone. This conscious deletion from the intro reinforces how VP was consciously lying about his plagiarism.
Obviously you place DWBH above the word. I would guess you did the same with VP. No wonder you got disappointed. Man always fails. Stick with God. That is really good advice. I hope you don't blow it off because VP once said the same thing.
Rob, WTF are you talking about??!! Please do not give me advice; my mother is dead. I don't place anything above God; God is first in my life. I think you talk a lot of S--t.
Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz.....call the Orkin Man!! Fumigate this thread. Don't feed trolls. LMAO. Robson.....resistance is futile! You are the "spurchal" Borg. Watch out for all dem Debbil spurts! They're all around ya you know! Everything gives off something don'tchya know! Besides that horrible stench of lies, hypocrisy, and blatant self-delusion which oozes from your every plagiarized woid, you give off debbil spurt vibes.......LOL! You better start "all 9 all the time" for "real" now. Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz.............you've been bitten by debbils! Bwaaaaahahahahaha!
DWBH, leave it to you to make me laugh before I have breakfast!!
Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz.....call the Orkin Man!! Fumigate this thread. Don't feed trolls. LMAO. Robson.....resistance is futile! You are the "spurchal" Borg. Watch out for all dem Debbil spurts! They're all around ya you know! Everything gives off something don'tchya know! Besides that horrible stench of lies, hypocrisy, and blatant self-delusion which oozes from your every plagiarized woid, you give off debbil spurt vibes.......LOL! You better start "all 9 all the time" for "real" now. Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz.............you've been bitten by debbils! Bwaaaaahahahahaha!
I tried to send a private message to you, but I guess you don't accept them. Sorry, but I have to make this public:
Not that I will do anything about it, but you should be careful with your words.
On July 6 You said: You (Robson) better start "all 9 all the time" for "real" now.
Again, I'm not worried and won't report it or anything, but my immediate thought upon reading it was, "Is that a threat?". I don't know who you are or your general disposition, so I don't know what you are capable of doing, or at least trying to do. Nonetheless, I'm treating it as nothing more than an idle threat for now. Let's keep it that way.
*puts fingers to his temples . . . focuses on nearby object . . . get frustrated that it won't levitate*
Some things or events we can picture and create and give meaning to. But I can't make my coffee mug come to me on its own. But still my mind sees a meaningful, purposeful object. So there's some boundaries there. Are the boundaries imaginary?
Some things can only be imagined but some things can be imagined AND brought into physical reality?
Of course, sometimes we don't see things that are there. Is they not real, too?
Linda, my mind is made-up; I don't need facts! Just kidding! No seriously Linda, I think you are right. Please, let's stick to facts, and not give our PI.
I'm highly in favor of sticking to the facts, and labeling anything as appropriate- speculation, supposition, guess, and so on. (I also think this is beating a dead horse, but you revived the post, so...)
We KNOW that vpw died of cancer, and that this cancer that killed him was from the liver. We know this cancer began in the eye and spread to the liver. (We all agree on this because his death certificate says much of that, and it's common enough for the cancer to spread to the liver from the eye, and not vice versa.) So, the cause of death is not debated.
We KNOW (or should know) that chronic exposure to both alcohol and tobacco are damaging to the body, including damage to the eye (tobacco, that's known) and damage to the liver (alcohol, that's also known.) So, we know that vpw's chronic drinking and smoking did damage to his liver and eye. The question there then becomes- did this have a connection to his death and the cancer in his liver and eye- and, if so, what connection was that?
We KNOW that vpw exposed his eyes to bright lights for a period of about 2 weeks in the 1960s when filming pfal. We know he had sore eyes as a result of the bright studio lights, and they hurt a lot during the filming. The question there then becomes- did this have a connection to his death and the cancer in his liver and/or eye- and if so, what connection was that?
It has been shown that CERTAIN exposures to light can damage the eye and increase the risk of cancer. To be specific, it's been shown that WELDERS have an increased risk and they have eyes that are exposed to brilliant UV sources inches from their eyes over a period of years. It has not been shown (I await a specific source) that other types of bright light, over a period of less than a month, are a cancer risk. Since vpw was NOT exposed to the level of light of a welding torch, at the proximity of a welding torch, with the wavelengths of light of a welding torch, for the periods of time in which welders are exposed, I'm HIGHLY skeptical it's connected in any way. So, the only study I've seen with an increased risk factor for bright light in ocular cancer is IRRELEVANT. If there's a different one, with the same kinds of light, time exposure and light proximity, that would be a different story entirely.
For that matter, we're "cherry-picking" here if we insist that bright studio lights MUST cause cancer because they're bright. I had a small chat with someone who did DECADES of stage work. He's a minor actor, who acts as a hobby. In relevance to the discussion, he's been either on the stage or a stagehand for hundreds of shows at dozens of venues of different types. He's had the bright stage lights and studio lights pointed at his eyes lots of times. He's assisted in lots of productions where the bright stage light and studio lights were pointed at other people's eyes. He's known lots of actors in passing, and spoken to lots of actors. He was legitimately puzzled at the suggestion that bright studio lights might cause cancer. I asked him. He gave it some thought. He's known actors who died, but none who had ocular cancer. He also never HEARD of an actor who ended up with ocular cancer. Granted, that's hardly authoritative. However, what is interesting is that there's no report. IF bright studio lights were a significant cancer risk, IF bright stage lights were a cancer risk, then SOMETHING would have been reported. There's no warning by doctors that news anchors should consider early retirement, or amateur actors should do the same, or that soap opera/telenovela actors are coming down with ocular cancer into their retirement. So, we not only have no proof that bright studio lights are a cancer risk over LONG PERIODS, we have an ABSENCE of cases and warnings about that. We've had warnings about tobacco and lung cancer since the 1940s.
So, pending ANY contrary evidence, it's irresponsible to SPECULATE that LONG-TERM exposure to studio lights would cause cancer. I'm sure vpw hurt his eyes, but that's proof that he hurt his eyes. If someone's got a link that says that injuring they eye in general with bright light is a risk factor for cancer, please post the link, it's certainly news to mem and nobody's posted that. (Let's have some facts on that rather than speculation and name-calling, I say.) One thing which should NOT be overlooked is that hurting his eyes like that would make him more "sensitive" to complaining about eye pain later. (If his eyes hurt, he would be more likely to complain, and would not hesitate to claim his later eye pain was connected to this one even if there was no reason to think so, just because this was when his eyes hurt before.)
We KNOW that tobacco is a carcinogen. We probably know that wierwille carried some sort of risk factor for cancer (it's unreasonable to presume Don's death from cancer was a remarkable coincidence, and Don didn't have behavioral risks like chain-smoking or alcohol that we are aware of- at least to the degree of chronic user vpw. People saw vpw smoking and drinking constantly but not Don.) We know that cancer can't be predicted with mathematical certainty. (This genetic factor plus this exact behavior = cancer and this other behavior plus the same risk factor does not, etc.)
So, what can we say with any reasonable certainty?
A) Bright studio lights over 2 weeks will hurt your eyes. Bright studio lights over periods of a few months over a lifetime are NOT shown risk-factors for cancer. Bright studio lights over even shorter periods should be less so, not moreso (thus, are also not shown to be a risk-factor.)
B) Welding tools used over long periods are known risk-factors for eye cancer. vpw did not use welding tools over long periods.
C) Cigarettes are known to damage the eyes of the smokers, especially over long periods. Tobacco use is a known carcinogen, and has been shown to be a risk factor for all sorts of cancer. I'm not aware of any study to determine definitively if eye cancer should be in the list. vpw smoked a lot over decades, and introduced carcinogenic smoke to his body over long periods, in addition to damaging his eyes with the same smoke.
D) Alcohol is known to both damage the immune system (which decreases the body's ability to fight cancer), and damages the liver specifically (which decreases the body's ability to fight cancer).
E) The accounts that the bright studio light usage over a few weeks causing eye cancer were NOT documented by medical experts. The sole source of this story was vpw, who is known to have been a habitual liar who spent his life inflating his own image and framing himself as some noble person. If the eye cancer was the result of his chronic smoking and drinking and he knew that, he would certainly have lied and said it was due to his "noble sacrifice" of filming pfal for 2 weeks over a decade before. If that was the cause and he didn't know the cause, he would do exactly the same thing. In short, the only account claiming this is why he got cancer was from the mouth of the biggest liar of whom we're all personally acquainted.
======================================
If any definitive conclusion can be drawn with no new information introduced, it would be the following:
vpw spent a few weeks exposed to bright lights which hurt his eyes and did no carcinogenic damage. vpw spent decades before and after this damaging his immune system and introducing carcinogens to his body in general. vpw had a genetic risk for cancer. Sometime later, vpw was diagnosed with eye cancer which spread to his liver. vpw, a known liar, spread a story about how his eye cancer was the result of his "sacrifice" of being exposed to bright lights "for the benefit of God and others."
It is true, that no ABSOLUTE conclusion, mathematically, can be drawn as to EXACTLY why he got cancer. We do, however, know what the KNOWN risks are. We also know what vpw CLAIMED the known risks are-and the medical professionals disagree with vpw on that one, imagine that!
So, I think there's little REASONABLE doubt (pending new, clear data) that vpw was factually wrong and the story that goes around was factually wrong, and that the known carcinogens did what carcinogens do all the time, and- added to his risk if exposed to them- caused vpw to die of cancer.
Pending some reliable studies or reliable sources that say otherwise, I really think this has been discussed into the ground and would prefer to move on to other things. Which is why I let it drop before.
I tried to send a private message to you, but I guess you don't accept them. Sorry, but I have to make this public:
Not that I will do anything about it, but you should be careful with your words.
On July 6 You said: You (Robson) better start "all 9 all the time" for "real" now.
Again, I'm not worried and won't report it or anything, but my immediate thought upon reading it was, "Is that a threat?". I don't know who you are or your general disposition, so I don't know what you are capable of doing, or at least trying to do. Nonetheless, I'm treating it as nothing more than an idle threat for now. Let's keep it that way.
Friendly advice, that's all. Take care....Rich
Very few people nowadays make a claim of "operating all 9 all the time." It's an outrageous, ridiculous claim. You rattled it off like nothing when you arrived. To the rest of us, that told us a lot.
I tried to send a private message to you, but I guess you don't accept them. Sorry, but I have to make this public:
Not that I will do anything about it, but you should be careful with your words.
On July 6 You said: You (Robson) better start "all 9 all the time" for "real" now.
Again, I'm not worried and won't report it or anything, but my immediate thought upon reading it was, "Is that a threat?". I don't know who you are or your general disposition, so I don't know what you are capable of doing, or at least trying to do. Nonetheless, I'm treating it as nothing more than an idle threat for now. Let's keep it that way.
Friendly advice, that's all. Take care....Rich
Maybe the initials RD might give you a hint, his ex-wife is Lori
Rrobs, presuming everything you posted was serious, you're running into some very elementary and very obvious problems.
1) You do not know where you are. The GSC exists specifically to "tell the other side of the story" with twi, and sometimes with its offspring, the offshoots. That means that, not only is it NOT a vpw admiration society, it is the opposite of that, and people have told about the many felonies for which vpw would have gone to prison if he had been caught, and if he hadn't been as thorough as he had been in covering his @$$ when raping women and making sure they wouldn't tell on him. So, posts extolling his brilliance, or ignorant of the rather fundamental flaws of pfal and twi materials, will reflect poorly in this crowd. (vpw plagiarized and often didn't really understand what he plagiarized, so he reproduced correctable errors entirely, and sometimes quoted incorrectly and contradicted himself, and sometimes added a few things to make himself sound like he was walking around getting revelation when he was using hidden sources for his (often wrong) claims, and occasionally adding a bit of charlatan showmanship to make it look more convincing.)
2) Furthermore, posts which reflect a vocabulary centered around twi-speak that also include claims that the poster examined vpw's work independently and thoroughly expose a rather marked lack of thoroughness in that department.
3) The GSC exists to "tell the other side of the story." It is not a Christian messageboard, nor does it need to be. There's no universal consensus on doctrine among posters that represent a variety of Christian positions, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, wiccan, etc. So, expecting everyone here to agree on the Bible as THE standard is not effective, even if it's not as volatile as trying to get them to agree on twi materials as THE standard.
4) Because there's such a variety of posters, there's no one official consensus. However, you'll notice that nearly all the posters agree about vpw's plagiarism having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and about his rapes and molestations having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's because they're so well-documented and tracked after the fact that people from greatly-differing perspectives agree on them.
5) If what you're looking for is "the cheerful posts", the GSC is not the best forum for you. It's here to INFORM. Do you look to the evening news for your daily dose of sunshine? Furthermore, there's threads that are fairly cheerful. They're NOT in the forum where we discuss vpw's felonies.
6) Much of the time, we don't need to rehash the same felonies here- except when someone arrives and announces they didn't happen or that they were exaggerated or that it's fine that vpw was a plagiarist and rapist or whatever. THEN we have to get into the same old horse manure all over again.
7) The fact that we've informed people about vpw's felonies and so on does not mean we spend all our free time being depressed, negative people. We all have lives, and they're not on this board. The blithe dismissal of people with fantasies that this is how they spend their off-time is trite, and one defense mechanism of those who desperately want to imagine vpw was half the man he claimed he was.
8) If you really want to get into Doctrine, post in Doctrinal. If you want some light-hearted fun, we have gaming threads. in the Movies/Music forum. If you just want to repeat how wonderful vpw was and twi was without finding out why we disagree so strongly, this is the wrong messageboard for you. There's closed communities online that do little else but that very thing. They welcome another poster parroting the party line and would love to have you. If that's NOT what you want, then pay a little attention and consider changing your approach here. All the wayspeak, posted here, is a lot like someone showing up to a Holocaust Survivor panel in a Nazi uniform and playing the jackboot.
I tried to send a private message to you, but I guess you don't accept them. Sorry, but I have to make this public:
Not that I will do anything about it, but you should be careful with your words.
On July 6 You said: You (Robson) better start "all 9 all the time" for "real" now.
Again, I'm not worried and won't report it or anything, but my immediate thought upon reading it was, "Is that a threat?". I don't know who you are or your general disposition, so I don't know what you are capable of doing, or at least trying to do. Nonetheless, I'm treating it as nothing more than an idle threat for now. Let's keep it that way.
There was a doctrine about speaking up on error. It was an encouraged habit. I remember that.
It's like TWI took the mote and beam verse Jesus mentioned and switched the order.
We can go on and on about how hypocritical the behavior is. It's clearly, IMO, part of the design to do that. Get the individual to act in a way that the response of people won't make sense to them. Or at least overwhelm them into a defensive mental position.
Wayfer: "you made an error here" *feels pride for doing God's Word*
NonWayfer : "Yah, well, you made an error EVERYWHERE"
Wayfer: "what?" *must be hard-heartedness*
Edited by Bolshevik spelling, moved beam to my other eye
2. DWBH made a joke about devil spirits buzzing all around.
3. Discerning of Spirits is one of the "all 9" listed in the Way materials.
4. Therefore, based on his claim, rrobs should get busy operating those "all 9" (including Discerning of Spirits) to overcome these supposed devil spirits. That shouldn't be too hard, as he claims to have the expertise to do so.
How in the world can that be interpreted as a threat? It's a joke about the manifestations, not some kind of threat.
I tried to send a private message to you, but I guess you don't accept them. Sorry, but I have to make this public:
Not that I will do anything about it, but you should be careful with your words.
On July 6 You said: You (Robson) better start "all 9 all the time" for "real" now.
Again, I'm not worried and won't report it or anything, but my immediate thought upon reading it was, "Is that a threat?". I don't know who you are or your general disposition, so I don't know what you are capable of doing, or at least trying to do. Nonetheless, I'm treating it as nothing more than an idle threat for now. Let's keep it that way.
Friendly advice, that's all. Take care....Rich
Rob, what threat??!! Rich, what are you talking about??!! I think DWBH can be cutting with his wit, or comments, but I do not believe that he would ever harm anyone physically. That's some friendly advice, that's all. TTFG!
Rrobs, presuming everything you posted was serious, you're running into some very elementary and very obvious problems.
1) You do not know where you are. The GSC exists specifically to "tell the other side of the story" with twi, and sometimes with its offspring, the offshoots. That means that, not only is it NOT a vpw admiration society, it is the opposite of that, and people have told about the many felonies for which vpw would have gone to prison if he had been caught, and if he hadn't been as thorough as he had been in covering his @$$ when raping women and making sure they wouldn't tell on him. So, posts extolling his brilliance, or ignorant of the rather fundamental flaws of pfal and twi materials, will reflect poorly in this crowd. (vpw plagiarized and often didn't really understand what he plagiarized, so he reproduced correctable errors entirely, and sometimes quoted incorrectly and contradicted himself, and sometimes added a few things to make himself sound like he was walking around getting revelation when he was using hidden sources for his (often wrong) claims, and occasionally adding a bit of charlatan showmanship to make it look more convincing.)
2) Furthermore, posts which reflect a vocabulary centered around twi-speak that also include claims that the poster examined vpw's work independently and thoroughly expose a rather marked lack of thoroughness in that department.
3) The GSC exists to "tell the other side of the story." It is not a Christian messageboard, nor does it need to be. There's no universal consensus on doctrine among posters that represent a variety of Christian positions, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, wiccan, etc. So, expecting everyone here to agree on the Bible as THE standard is not effective, even if it's not as volatile as trying to get them to agree on twi materials as THE standard.
4) Because there's such a variety of posters, there's no one official consensus. However, you'll notice that nearly all the posters agree about vpw's plagiarism having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and about his rapes and molestations having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's because they're so well-documented and tracked after the fact that people from greatly-differing perspectives agree on them.
5) If what you're looking for is "the cheerful posts", the GSC is not the best forum for you. It's here to INFORM. Do you look to the evening news for your daily dose of sunshine? Furthermore, there's threads that are fairly cheerful. They're NOT in the forum where we discuss vpw's felonies.
6) Much of the time, we don't need to rehash the same felonies here- except when someone arrives and announces they didn't happen or that they were exaggerated or that it's fine that vpw was a plagiarist and rapist or whatever. THEN we have to get into the same old horse manure all over again.
7) The fact that we've informed people about vpw's felonies and so on does not mean we spend all our free time being depressed, negative people. We all have lives, and they're not on this board. The blithe dismissal of people with fantasies that this is how they spend their off-time is trite, and one defense mechanism of those who desperately want to imagine vpw was half the man he claimed he was.
8) If you really want to get into Doctrine, post in Doctrinal. If you want some light-hearted fun, we have gaming threads. in the Movies/Music forum. If you just want to repeat how wonderful vpw was and twi was without finding out why we disagree so strongly, this is the wrong messageboard for you. There's closed communities online that do little else but that very thing. They welcome another poster parroting the party line and would love to have you. If that's NOT what you want, then pay a little attention and consider changing your approach here. All the wayspeak, posted here, is a lot like someone showing up to a Holocaust Survivor panel in a Nazi uniform and playing the jackboot.
2. DWBH made a joke about devil spirits buzzing all around.
3. Discerning of Spirits is one of the "all 9" listed in the Way materials.
4. Therefore, based on his claim, rrobs should get busy operating those "all 9" (including Discerning of Spirits) to overcome these supposed devil spirits. That shouldn't be too hard, as he claims to have the expertise to do so.
How in the world can that be interpreted as a threat? It's a joke about the manifestations, not some kind of threat.
I tried to send a private message to you, but I guess you don't accept them. Sorry, but I have to make this public:
Not that I will do anything about it, but you should be careful with your words.
On July 6 You said: You (Robson) better start "all 9 all the time" for "real" now.
Again, I'm not worried and won't report it or anything, but my immediate thought upon reading it was, "Is that a threat?". I don't know who you are or your general disposition, so I don't know what you are capable of doing, or at least trying to do. Nonetheless, I'm treating it as nothing more than an idle threat for now. Let's keep it that way.
Friendly advice, that's all. Take care....Rich
If you want to talk about threats and all 9 all the time the only thing I can come up with is that I make a chili I call "Dante's Inferno" that has 9 layers of pepper in it - one for each layer of hell. Now if you were to consume an entire bowl of that then I would definitely constitute that as a threat. And it would definitely have you manifesting all 9 all the time (for about a 24 hour period).
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
47
69
62
127
Popular Days
Jul 6
142
Jul 4
63
Jul 2
54
Jul 5
48
Top Posters In This Topic
waysider 47 posts
Bolshevik 69 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 62 posts
rrobs 127 posts
Popular Days
Jul 6 2017
142 posts
Jul 4 2017
63 posts
Jul 2 2017
54 posts
Jul 5 2017
48 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
"I find it interesting that everybody here attacks me personally. Nobody address the things I say about the word. You keep wanting to make it about VP. Nobody here really knows my thinking on VP or th
Grace Valerie Claire
Robs, I think you should STFU.
waysider
OOPS!
rrobs
Leave it to the scholars, Christian scholars no less, to come up with a psychosis for those who study the Bible! Well God bless, I love them anyway.
I read the article in Wiki. Not much scripture, but I guess that would defeat the purpose of the article.
OK. Let's say it's not rhema., but logos, as I understand you are saying. Where do you go for logos? Where does one find...all things that pertain unto life and godliness...(2 Peter 1:3)? I've never even read that anywhere but the rhema. Where is it in the logos? I'm always open to discovering new truths. Up to now I've always gone to the rhema for them. Are there others in logos somewhere I'm not aware of?
God bless
Edited by rrobstypo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
When you give something new a name, it's like you're creating something, by giving it meaning and distinguishing it from the chaos.
Kinda neat considering how cults come up with their own terminology to redefine the world and experience.
You describe these "gifts of the spirt" and *POOF* . . . there they are . . . mixing already known stuff into improper categories and calling it SOMETHING.
Also . . . pretty cool . . . you imply its opposite at that same moment of creation . . . you know . . . debil spurts
Which leads me to a story about He-Man and The Advanced Class (Not the actual Advanced Class, those booster classes that come after, did they have a name??)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Do tell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Not a good story. Still trying to think of the name of an object. I see it in my mind but I can't seem to find the word for it. . . And it will feel more real when I think of the word. Kinda weird, huh?
Remember "conduit for the adversary"? The Hell was that?
Evil freak flows through certain objects you shouldn't own, because, you know, you shouldn't own them.
So here we all are constantly cleaning in our detail minded way to keep the Adversary out.
Just, perceiving evil where a normal person would not. Cause, nothing is perfect. But don't tell THEM that.
And in that Totalitarian System, The Leader is the soul of the people, and each of us is responsible for that.
So, gather together all your favorite objects, and burn them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Linda, my mind is made-up; I don't need facts! Just kidding! No seriously Linda, I think you are right. Please, let's stick to facts, and not give our PI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Yes!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Rob, my hidden sin?? Men, and food. Seriously!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Rob, WTF are you talking about??!! Please do not give me advice; my mother is dead. I don't place anything above God; God is first in my life. I think you talk a lot of S--t.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
DWBH, leave it to you to make me laugh before I have breakfast!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Rob, don't pick on T-Bone!! He is one of my favorite posters. He isn't childish; he is witty, smart, and knows his S--t; T-Bone rocks!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
I tried to send a private message to you, but I guess you don't accept them. Sorry, but I have to make this public:
Not that I will do anything about it, but you should be careful with your words.
On July 6 You said: You (Robson) better start "all 9 all the time" for "real" now.
Again, I'm not worried and won't report it or anything, but my immediate thought upon reading it was, "Is that a threat?". I don't know who you are or your general disposition, so I don't know what you are capable of doing, or at least trying to do. Nonetheless, I'm treating it as nothing more than an idle threat for now. Let's keep it that way.
Friendly advice, that's all. Take care....Rich
Edited by rrobstypo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So I'm still figuring this out.
*puts fingers to his temples . . . focuses on nearby object . . . get frustrated that it won't levitate*
Some things or events we can picture and create and give meaning to. But I can't make my coffee mug come to me on its own. But still my mind sees a meaningful, purposeful object. So there's some boundaries there. Are the boundaries imaginary?
Some things can only be imagined but some things can be imagined AND brought into physical reality?
Of course, sometimes we don't see things that are there. Is they not real, too?
I'm not really sure what any of these words mean.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm highly in favor of sticking to the facts, and labeling anything as appropriate- speculation, supposition, guess, and so on. (I also think this is beating a dead horse, but you revived the post, so...)
We KNOW that vpw died of cancer, and that this cancer that killed him was from the liver. We know this cancer began in the eye and spread to the liver. (We all agree on this because his death certificate says much of that, and it's common enough for the cancer to spread to the liver from the eye, and not vice versa.) So, the cause of death is not debated.
We KNOW (or should know) that chronic exposure to both alcohol and tobacco are damaging to the body, including damage to the eye (tobacco, that's known) and damage to the liver (alcohol, that's also known.) So, we know that vpw's chronic drinking and smoking did damage to his liver and eye. The question there then becomes- did this have a connection to his death and the cancer in his liver and eye- and, if so, what connection was that?
We KNOW that vpw exposed his eyes to bright lights for a period of about 2 weeks in the 1960s when filming pfal. We know he had sore eyes as a result of the bright studio lights, and they hurt a lot during the filming. The question there then becomes- did this have a connection to his death and the cancer in his liver and/or eye- and if so, what connection was that?
It has been shown that CERTAIN exposures to light can damage the eye and increase the risk of cancer. To be specific, it's been shown that WELDERS have an increased risk and they have eyes that are exposed to brilliant UV sources inches from their eyes over a period of years. It has not been shown (I await a specific source) that other types of bright light, over a period of less than a month, are a cancer risk. Since vpw was NOT exposed to the level of light of a welding torch, at the proximity of a welding torch, with the wavelengths of light of a welding torch, for the periods of time in which welders are exposed, I'm HIGHLY skeptical it's connected in any way. So, the only study I've seen with an increased risk factor for bright light in ocular cancer is IRRELEVANT. If there's a different one, with the same kinds of light, time exposure and light proximity, that would be a different story entirely.
For that matter, we're "cherry-picking" here if we insist that bright studio lights MUST cause cancer because they're bright. I had a small chat with someone who did DECADES of stage work. He's a minor actor, who acts as a hobby. In relevance to the discussion, he's been either on the stage or a stagehand for hundreds of shows at dozens of venues of different types. He's had the bright stage lights and studio lights pointed at his eyes lots of times. He's assisted in lots of productions where the bright stage light and studio lights were pointed at other people's eyes. He's known lots of actors in passing, and spoken to lots of actors. He was legitimately puzzled at the suggestion that bright studio lights might cause cancer. I asked him. He gave it some thought. He's known actors who died, but none who had ocular cancer. He also never HEARD of an actor who ended up with ocular cancer. Granted, that's hardly authoritative. However, what is interesting is that there's no report. IF bright studio lights were a significant cancer risk, IF bright stage lights were a cancer risk, then SOMETHING would have been reported. There's no warning by doctors that news anchors should consider early retirement, or amateur actors should do the same, or that soap opera/telenovela actors are coming down with ocular cancer into their retirement. So, we not only have no proof that bright studio lights are a cancer risk over LONG PERIODS, we have an ABSENCE of cases and warnings about that. We've had warnings about tobacco and lung cancer since the 1940s.
So, pending ANY contrary evidence, it's irresponsible to SPECULATE that LONG-TERM exposure to studio lights would cause cancer. I'm sure vpw hurt his eyes, but that's proof that he hurt his eyes. If someone's got a link that says that injuring they eye in general with bright light is a risk factor for cancer, please post the link, it's certainly news to mem and nobody's posted that. (Let's have some facts on that rather than speculation and name-calling, I say.) One thing which should NOT be overlooked is that hurting his eyes like that would make him more "sensitive" to complaining about eye pain later. (If his eyes hurt, he would be more likely to complain, and would not hesitate to claim his later eye pain was connected to this one even if there was no reason to think so, just because this was when his eyes hurt before.)
We KNOW that tobacco is a carcinogen. We probably know that wierwille carried some sort of risk factor for cancer (it's unreasonable to presume Don's death from cancer was a remarkable coincidence, and Don didn't have behavioral risks like chain-smoking or alcohol that we are aware of- at least to the degree of chronic user vpw. People saw vpw smoking and drinking constantly but not Don.) We know that cancer can't be predicted with mathematical certainty. (This genetic factor plus this exact behavior = cancer and this other behavior plus the same risk factor does not, etc.)
So, what can we say with any reasonable certainty?
A) Bright studio lights over 2 weeks will hurt your eyes. Bright studio lights over periods of a few months over a lifetime are NOT shown risk-factors for cancer. Bright studio lights over even shorter periods should be less so, not moreso (thus, are also not shown to be a risk-factor.)
B) Welding tools used over long periods are known risk-factors for eye cancer. vpw did not use welding tools over long periods.
C) Cigarettes are known to damage the eyes of the smokers, especially over long periods. Tobacco use is a known carcinogen, and has been shown to be a risk factor for all sorts of cancer. I'm not aware of any study to determine definitively if eye cancer should be in the list. vpw smoked a lot over decades, and introduced carcinogenic smoke to his body over long periods, in addition to damaging his eyes with the same smoke.
D) Alcohol is known to both damage the immune system (which decreases the body's ability to fight cancer), and damages the liver specifically (which decreases the body's ability to fight cancer).
E) The accounts that the bright studio light usage over a few weeks causing eye cancer were NOT documented by medical experts. The sole source of this story was vpw, who is known to have been a habitual liar who spent his life inflating his own image and framing himself as some noble person. If the eye cancer was the result of his chronic smoking and drinking and he knew that, he would certainly have lied and said it was due to his "noble sacrifice" of filming pfal for 2 weeks over a decade before. If that was the cause and he didn't know the cause, he would do exactly the same thing. In short, the only account claiming this is why he got cancer was from the mouth of the biggest liar of whom we're all personally acquainted.
======================================
If any definitive conclusion can be drawn with no new information introduced, it would be the following:
vpw spent a few weeks exposed to bright lights which hurt his eyes and did no carcinogenic damage. vpw spent decades before and after this damaging his immune system and introducing carcinogens to his body in general. vpw had a genetic risk for cancer. Sometime later, vpw was diagnosed with eye cancer which spread to his liver. vpw, a known liar, spread a story about how his eye cancer was the result of his "sacrifice" of being exposed to bright lights "for the benefit of God and others."
It is true, that no ABSOLUTE conclusion, mathematically, can be drawn as to EXACTLY why he got cancer. We do, however, know what the KNOWN risks are. We also know what vpw CLAIMED the known risks are-and the medical professionals disagree with vpw on that one, imagine that!
So, I think there's little REASONABLE doubt (pending new, clear data) that vpw was factually wrong and the story that goes around was factually wrong, and that the known carcinogens did what carcinogens do all the time, and- added to his risk if exposed to them- caused vpw to die of cancer.
Pending some reliable studies or reliable sources that say otherwise, I really think this has been discussed into the ground and would prefer to move on to other things. Which is why I let it drop before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Very few people nowadays make a claim of "operating all 9 all the time." It's an outrageous, ridiculous claim. You rattled it off like nothing when you arrived. To the rest of us, that told us a lot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Maybe the initials RD might give you a hint, his ex-wife is Lori
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Rrobs, presuming everything you posted was serious, you're running into some very elementary and very obvious problems.
1) You do not know where you are. The GSC exists specifically to "tell the other side of the story" with twi, and sometimes with its offspring, the offshoots. That means that, not only is it NOT a vpw admiration society, it is the opposite of that, and people have told about the many felonies for which vpw would have gone to prison if he had been caught, and if he hadn't been as thorough as he had been in covering his @$$ when raping women and making sure they wouldn't tell on him. So, posts extolling his brilliance, or ignorant of the rather fundamental flaws of pfal and twi materials, will reflect poorly in this crowd. (vpw plagiarized and often didn't really understand what he plagiarized, so he reproduced correctable errors entirely, and sometimes quoted incorrectly and contradicted himself, and sometimes added a few things to make himself sound like he was walking around getting revelation when he was using hidden sources for his (often wrong) claims, and occasionally adding a bit of charlatan showmanship to make it look more convincing.)
2) Furthermore, posts which reflect a vocabulary centered around twi-speak that also include claims that the poster examined vpw's work independently and thoroughly expose a rather marked lack of thoroughness in that department.
3) The GSC exists to "tell the other side of the story." It is not a Christian messageboard, nor does it need to be. There's no universal consensus on doctrine among posters that represent a variety of Christian positions, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, wiccan, etc. So, expecting everyone here to agree on the Bible as THE standard is not effective, even if it's not as volatile as trying to get them to agree on twi materials as THE standard.
4) Because there's such a variety of posters, there's no one official consensus. However, you'll notice that nearly all the posters agree about vpw's plagiarism having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and about his rapes and molestations having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's because they're so well-documented and tracked after the fact that people from greatly-differing perspectives agree on them.
5) If what you're looking for is "the cheerful posts", the GSC is not the best forum for you. It's here to INFORM. Do you look to the evening news for your daily dose of sunshine? Furthermore, there's threads that are fairly cheerful. They're NOT in the forum where we discuss vpw's felonies.
6) Much of the time, we don't need to rehash the same felonies here- except when someone arrives and announces they didn't happen or that they were exaggerated or that it's fine that vpw was a plagiarist and rapist or whatever. THEN we have to get into the same old horse manure all over again.
7) The fact that we've informed people about vpw's felonies and so on does not mean we spend all our free time being depressed, negative people. We all have lives, and they're not on this board. The blithe dismissal of people with fantasies that this is how they spend their off-time is trite, and one defense mechanism of those who desperately want to imagine vpw was half the man he claimed he was.
8) If you really want to get into Doctrine, post in Doctrinal. If you want some light-hearted fun, we have gaming threads. in the Movies/Music forum. If you just want to repeat how wonderful vpw was and twi was without finding out why we disagree so strongly, this is the wrong messageboard for you. There's closed communities online that do little else but that very thing. They welcome another poster parroting the party line and would love to have you. If that's NOT what you want, then pay a little attention and consider changing your approach here. All the wayspeak, posted here, is a lot like someone showing up to a Holocaust Survivor panel in a Nazi uniform and playing the jackboot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Hey Rich........context, man. Remember?
Looks to me like DWBH responded in sarcasm to the absurdity of your recurring stance on pfal/twi allegiance....
You read it as "an idle threat".......???
Wowsers, talk about "spurchal" perception and discernment.......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
There was a doctrine about speaking up on error. It was an encouraged habit. I remember that.
It's like TWI took the mote and beam verse Jesus mentioned and switched the order.
We can go on and on about how hypocritical the behavior is. It's clearly, IMO, part of the design to do that. Get the individual to act in a way that the response of people won't make sense to them. Or at least overwhelm them into a defensive mental position.
Wayfer: "you made an error here" *feels pride for doing God's Word*
NonWayfer : "Yah, well, you made an error EVERYWHERE"
Wayfer: "what?" *must be hard-heartedness*
Edited by Bolshevikspelling, moved beam to my other eye
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Sorry. I'm failing to see this supposed threat.
1. rrobs said he operates "all 9, all the time".
2. DWBH made a joke about devil spirits buzzing all around.
3. Discerning of Spirits is one of the "all 9" listed in the Way materials.
4. Therefore, based on his claim, rrobs should get busy operating those "all 9" (including Discerning of Spirits) to overcome these supposed devil spirits. That shouldn't be too hard, as he claims to have the expertise to do so.
How in the world can that be interpreted as a threat? It's a joke about the manifestations, not some kind of threat.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Rob, what threat??!! Rich, what are you talking about??!! I think DWBH can be cutting with his wit, or comments, but I do not believe that he would ever harm anyone physically. That's some friendly advice, that's all. TTFG!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
WW, yes!!!!! WW, you nailed it!! You rock WW!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Sky, honestly you are funnier than Eddie Murphy, IMO!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Clinical paranoia?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
If you want to talk about threats and all 9 all the time the only thing I can come up with is that I make a chili I call "Dante's Inferno" that has 9 layers of pepper in it - one for each layer of hell. Now if you were to consume an entire bowl of that then I would definitely constitute that as a threat. And it would definitely have you manifesting all 9 all the time (for about a 24 hour period).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.