Oh come on Waysider...you and I both know who "they" are. The scary "them" remember? THEY were behind a great many things and always out to get "us" because we had all that secret super special knowledge? Ring any bells?
Wait, are you implying we don't have to still blindly accept that there is a "they" plotting to get "us"? Maybe, you just forgot how to operate your secret magic spirit powers to see the spiritual realm........ or in our case have a serious case of societal paranoia.
Silly Waysider, chant mindlessly in your head for a few months....maybe read the blue book a few hundred times and WORK that TWI material....make sure you cut yourself off from any other influences(they are part of the adversaries "them") .. and it will all come back to you.
Through the filter of psychiatry/psychology the same 2 choices are given. You had your encounter with VP when you were 20 and now you're 54, yet not only did you go through the way corps, you stayed in twi for 10 more years or so. Psychiatry/psychology says that either (choice #1) you're really stupid, or (choice #2) you were controlled, they did this to you, you did not do this to yourself, you were brainwashed. No, you're not really stupid, and, no, you weren't controlled, you made choices based on your own interests at the time. Presented like that, choice #2 is again the easiest to accept, which 1) obligates you to continue learning about how you were controlled, which 2) requires the continued services of psychiatry/psychology, the scam artists.
This is a logical fallacy known as false dilemma (definition). It professes that there are only two possible choices when there are actually more. For example, from the above yopu present:
1. We were controlled
2. We were working in our own interest
(We're stupid isn't even a viable option)
The easest way to dash false dilemma is to add more possibilities. The simplest:
3. Both: we were being controlled by them manipulating our own interest.
4. Neither: there were other forces in play.
What other forces? Being born into it
Having parents that forced us to go to twig
Getting adopted into it
You get the idea.
My point: the world is seldom as simple as black or white. There's a lot of shades of grey.
quote: Wait, are you implying we don't have to still blindly accept that there is a "they" plotting to get "us"? Maybe, you just forgot how to operate your secret magic spirit powers to see the spiritual realm........ or in our case have a serious case of societal paranoia.
What if I said that they made a law requiring all Americans to pay for health care by 2013? Is that also societal paranoia? Other theys are trying to overthrow it, but the theys are all actually there.
quote: Wait, are you implying we don't have to still blindly accept that there is a "they" plotting to get "us"? Maybe, you just forgot how to operate your secret magic spirit powers to see the spiritual realm........ or in our case have a serious case of societal paranoia.
What if I said that they made a law requiring all Americans to pay for health care by 2013? Is that also societal paranoia? Other theys are trying to overthrow it, but the theys are all actually there.
Johniam,
If you said that "they" made a law requiring all Americans to pay for health care by 2013 I would have to assume you are speaking about our elected officials. That is because I know whose responsibility it is to write and enact the laws in this country, The other "theys" trying to stop them would be more difficult to pin point. Lobbying groups, other elected officials? It would just be a guess as to who you specifically mean. By the way, I live in a state with mandated Health Care coverage....we are all going to be just fine.
If it is the APA (American Psychiatric Association) who is determined to test and medicate all children at two years of age and target the children of Christians in particular.....or the AMA...or the ANA...I assume you would include that information in your post. Maybe some stats. If you mean the congress enacting a law which mandated the testing of two year olds and targets the children of Christians in particular then we run into the problem of established law which allows for freedom of religion.
So, who were you speaking about? Is targeting the two year old children of Christians for medication evaluation actually in the care act? Maybe it is and I missed it?
BTW, the Psychiatric profession is made up of individuals, with different methodology, and often competing schools of thought.....and it is made up of people of faith as well as those who are agnostic. We Christians get around johniam...those of us who do not mentally isolate that is...we are psychologists, psychiatrists, astronauts, scientists, mathematicians, politicians, Oxford Dons, doctors, lawyers, Indian Chiefs....Francis Collins who co-mapped the human genome is an evangelical, bible believing, Holy Spirit filled Christian.
Here is what you said...so I am not confusing your words. Maybe I was reading into it incorrectly, if that is the case...I apologize.
I posted recently that psychiatry/psychology has enough clout in today's culture that they are actually allowed to testify in court cases as "expert witnesses" as to why someone behaves as they do. They just explain away spirit possession and get really dangerous people off (like this guy who shot the congresswoman in Tucson) and cause harmless people (many times believers) to be incarcerated. But it doesn't stop there.
What they would ultimately like to do is to require EVERYBODY to have a psych exam as soon as they can talk. They'll have their syndromes, their personality profiles, all their 'ducks in a row' and they will decide that some 2 year olds have "dangerous potential" based on that data, so they'll make said 2 year olds take meds that will prevent that so called dangerous potential. They'll likely decide that for children from families with long lines of Christianity in them. Dr. Mengela would have been proud.
What if I said that they made a law requiring all Americans to pay for health care by 2013? Is that also societal paranoia? Other theys are trying to overthrow it, but the theys are all actually there.
Sounds like you have a LOT of different "they's". Are "they" all one big "they",
or are there many independent "theys" that lack specific names?
"They" is INCREDIBLY vague- and thus INCREDIBLY CONVENIENT.
No need to communicate clearly-just be vague and insult people who want specifics
quote: Is targeting the two year old children of Christians for medication evaluation actually in the care act?
Wouldn't surprise me.
quote: If you mean the congress enacting a law which mandated the testing of two year olds and targets the children of Christians in particular then we run into the problem of established law which allows for freedom of religion.
No problem at all. In fact, this would be an effective 'end around' freedom of religion. The 'stated reason' would be in psychological terms, but the real reason would be, as I said, to target Christians.
Maybe Bob Stanley picked the wrong pronoun. His song should have said...
Who are they? Why are they here? What should they do with your life?
'They' is a 3rd person plural pronoun. It applies to many scenerios. Notice I said "if the return happened right now". It could still be centuries away. If it doesn't happen for, say, a hundred years or more, then the current so called psychiatry/psychology will be long obsolete by then. Remember, the adversary adapts his methods to the conditions and the times. He can always get done what he wants to get done, but he has to work through humans, so he has to work through what humans use. Right NOW? Humans definitely use psychiatry/psychology in a big way. Thankfully, we believers have the guarantee that "he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way". No matter how bad it gets in the world, the light of the body of Christ will keep the adversary down until the return, when the light is gone, and darkness can then, for a season, take over completely. 'They' is a 3rd person plural pronoun, nothing more.
That's a cop-out, John. When you say "they" are doing this (specific thing) or "they" are saying that (specific thing), you need to be ready to identify (specifically) the object of your reference. Otherwise, it's all idle babble. Meaningless. Unworthy of consideration or response.
That's a cop-out, John. When you say "they" are doing this (specific thing) or "they" are saying that (specific thing), you need to be ready to identify (specifically) the object of your reference. Otherwise, it's all idle babble. Meaningless. Unworthy of consideration or response.
Common trolling techniques to cause a stir. Not sure if John knows it or not, some trolls are unwitting.
That's a cop-out, John. When you say "they" are doing this (specific thing) or "they" are saying that (specific thing), you need to be ready to identify (specifically) the object of your reference. Otherwise, it's all idle babble. Meaningless. Unworthy of consideration or response.
He did....the devil.
I remember once, as a WOW, I thought I got the most amazing revelation from God.....it was Satan who had formed all these other groups, labeled cults, like the Moonies etc...so that Satan could label TWI a cult and that would keep people from the truth. It was shortly after someone reached out to me and told me TWI was a cult. Seriously....it was from God's lips to my ear.
My mind was toast and I was so mentally isolated from anyone who could help me.
I remember once, as a WOW, I thought I got the most amazing revelation from God.....it was Satan who had formed all these other groups, labeled cults, like the Moonies etc...so that Satan could label TWI a cult and that would keep people from the truth. It was shortly after someone reached out to me and told me TWI was a cult. Seriously....it was from God's lips to my ear.
My mind was toast and I was so mentally isolated from anyone who could help me.
Lets turn that around for a minute.
Rather than people agents of the devil, cult agents of truth, let's look at people agents of truth, cult agents of the devil.
If your theory is true : the devil could isolate you from the truth by telling you people who are saying a particular institution is a cult. Then why isn't it equally viable that the devil can isolate you from the truth by having the people in the cult tell you those that are trying to warn you are devil spirits?
Rather than people agents of the devil, cult agents of truth, let's look at people agents of truth, cult agents of the devil.
If your theory is true : the devil could isolate you from the truth by telling you people who are saying a particular institution is a cult. Then why isn't it equally viable that the devil can isolate you from the truth by having the people in the cult tell you those that are trying to warn you are devil spirits?
SoCrates
It wasn't true...I wasn't hearing from God, I was hearing voices, in my mind! I told myself that. :) There was no revelation from God.
I was so wrapped up in seeing the world the way TWI theology presents it....I went a little nutty. That is how I processed and filtered information while in TWI...through TWI theology and the filter of seeing the devil behind everything except TWI.
Ironic right? Not really very healthy ... is it?
Not only did TWI isolate us from society...but, I think it was a gateway for a few mental illnesses!
This goes back to pfal; centers of reference for truth. VPs point was that if you have multiple centers of reference for truth (not facts), then you risk being in mental confusion. Whether anybody agrees with pfal doctrine or not, each of us has to pick our own center(s) of reference for truth, reality, whatever you prefer to call it. Jesus did it: "I am the way the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me!" Many college educated people have science and their philosophical 'flavor of the month' as their center of reference. It's not that big of a deal, really.
This goes back to pfal; centers of reference for truth. VPs point was that if you have multiple centers of reference for truth (not facts), then you risk being in mental confusion. Whether anybody agrees with pfal doctrine or not, each of us has to pick our own center(s) of reference for truth, reality, whatever you prefer to call it. Jesus did it: "I am the way the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me!" Many college educated people have science and their philosophical 'flavor of the month' as their center of reference. It's not that big of a deal, really.
And, conveniently, that helped VP with his next logical point, which was to make VP your center of reference for truth. Oh, but you'll say, he never said that, didn't want that, in reality pointed people towards "The Word" as "our only rule of faith and practice."
You see, this is why in the Bible Jesus warns us about false prophets and false teachers - wolves in sheep's clothing. It is also why he teaches his disciples to know people "by their fruits" rather than by their words.
You see VP - by his fruit would not listen to the Word as people's only rule of faith and practice. There are many accounts of that here, one of the most notable being John Schoenheit writing the paper on adultery. If VP's words were how he lived, no problem. However, John was fired for writing a paper saying adultery is wrong. In practice, what VP meant by "the Word, the Word, and nothing but the Word" was "VP's words, VP's words, and nothing but VP's words". He expected the Corps to jump at his words teaching them "the suggestion of a general is tantamount to a command". This pervading culture permeated all of TWI, and has carried forward to two generations of successing presidents.
In comparison, having Newton's laws, or Skinner's behaviorism as your center of reference is far less damaging to a person's self and the others around them.
Like any master of politics he created a problem: what's your central reference for truth? Then he presented the solution: PFAL, or Saint Vic's interpretation of the Word.
It could be argued that his interpretation was not a true interpretation, if for nothing else for the reasons Chockfull innumerated: his fruit and he didn't follow the word himself.
in navigation there's a thing called triangulation - the navigator determines the location of a point by measuring angles to it from other known location points.
~~
it's just my opinion - but if one was a researcher navigating through a vast forest of data to find the most accurate details on a topic - i think it would be wise to check multiple reference points.
i'm thinking that's the way most normal folks develop a belief system. they take a little from this, a little from that - some things they read here, there - from experiences and observations. but vp wasn't big on critical thinking either - he taught all great inventions come by revelation. from his teachings i got the impression you didn't need any "worldly" knowledge or wisdom. so why then would you ever want to learn from anyone else besides him. In order for a grad to become "successful" , PFAL must be the ONLY reference point for learning.
i think vp's model of learning mentioned in PFAL is what leads to confusion - which for all practical purposes boils down to the student adopting/absorbing the PFAL/TWI tunnel-vision mindset. The "light" at the end of that tunnel is the glowing ember of vp's cigarette butt.
~~
edited to get to the point or multiple points....whichever comes first....
i'm thinking that's the way most normal folks develop a belief system. they take a little from this, a little from that - some things they read here, there - from experiences and observations. but vp wasn't big on critical thinking either - he taught all great inventions come by revelation. from his teachings i got the impression you didn't need any "worldly" knowledge or wisdom. so why then would you ever want to learn from anyone else besides him. In order for a grad to become "successful" , PFAL must be the ONLY reference point for learning.
He wasn't big on YOU being a critical thinker. Nor YOU needing any worldly wisdom.
The law of believing: world wisdom. There's nothing in the bible to support giving equals recieving (yes, I know its a misnomer).
The original sin: world wisdom palmed off as revelation. The bible makes no mention of what the original sin was.
and on and on.
This was a method of control that kept people in little boxes. If they turned to some "worldly wisdom" sources, believers may have found the sources he plagerized or realized just how full of horse apples Saint Vic was.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
39
40
46
44
Popular Days
Mar 11
55
Mar 29
34
Mar 16
23
Mar 21
22
Top Posters In This Topic
johniam 39 posts
Ham 40 posts
waysider 46 posts
So_crates 44 posts
Popular Days
Mar 11 2011
55 posts
Mar 29 2011
34 posts
Mar 16 2011
23 posts
Mar 21 2011
22 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
"I could use the same argument when sex abuse victims tell their stories. I could say that in India it's still possible for a husband to find his wife not pleasing and have her burned. That twi sex ab
WordWolf
Sounds like you have a LOT of different "they's". Are "they" all one big "they", or are there many independent "theys" that lack specific names? "They" is INCREDIBLY vague- and thus INCREDIBLY CONV
waysider
Posted Images
geisha779
Oh come on Waysider...you and I both know who "they" are. The scary "them" remember? THEY were behind a great many things and always out to get "us" because we had all that secret super special knowledge? Ring any bells?
Wait, are you implying we don't have to still blindly accept that there is a "they" plotting to get "us"? Maybe, you just forgot how to operate your secret magic spirit powers to see the spiritual realm........ or in our case have a serious case of societal paranoia.
Silly Waysider, chant mindlessly in your head for a few months....maybe read the blue book a few hundred times and WORK that TWI material....make sure you cut yourself off from any other influences(they are part of the adversaries "them") .. and it will all come back to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
have no idea what you're talking about, john
also
i love them
it actually doesn't bother me that i don't know what you're talking about :)
(referring to the loser thing and ghost)
in plain english, not king james, i just felt bad about calling you a f'ing loser
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
This is a logical fallacy known as false dilemma (definition). It professes that there are only two possible choices when there are actually more. For example, from the above yopu present:
1. We were controlled
2. We were working in our own interest
(We're stupid isn't even a viable option)
The easest way to dash false dilemma is to add more possibilities. The simplest:
3. Both: we were being controlled by them manipulating our own interest.
4. Neither: there were other forces in play.
What other forces? Being born into it
Having parents that forced us to go to twig
Getting adopted into it
You get the idea.
My point: the world is seldom as simple as black or white. There's a lot of shades of grey.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Wait, are you implying we don't have to still blindly accept that there is a "they" plotting to get "us"? Maybe, you just forgot how to operate your secret magic spirit powers to see the spiritual realm........ or in our case have a serious case of societal paranoia.
What if I said that they made a law requiring all Americans to pay for health care by 2013? Is that also societal paranoia? Other theys are trying to overthrow it, but the theys are all actually there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'd still like to know who "they" are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Waysider, "they" don't want you to know who "they" are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Johniam,
If you said that "they" made a law requiring all Americans to pay for health care by 2013 I would have to assume you are speaking about our elected officials. That is because I know whose responsibility it is to write and enact the laws in this country, The other "theys" trying to stop them would be more difficult to pin point. Lobbying groups, other elected officials? It would just be a guess as to who you specifically mean. By the way, I live in a state with mandated Health Care coverage....we are all going to be just fine.
If it is the APA (American Psychiatric Association) who is determined to test and medicate all children at two years of age and target the children of Christians in particular.....or the AMA...or the ANA...I assume you would include that information in your post. Maybe some stats. If you mean the congress enacting a law which mandated the testing of two year olds and targets the children of Christians in particular then we run into the problem of established law which allows for freedom of religion.
So, who were you speaking about? Is targeting the two year old children of Christians for medication evaluation actually in the care act? Maybe it is and I missed it?
BTW, the Psychiatric profession is made up of individuals, with different methodology, and often competing schools of thought.....and it is made up of people of faith as well as those who are agnostic. We Christians get around johniam...those of us who do not mentally isolate that is...we are psychologists, psychiatrists, astronauts, scientists, mathematicians, politicians, Oxford Dons, doctors, lawyers, Indian Chiefs....Francis Collins who co-mapped the human genome is an evangelical, bible believing, Holy Spirit filled Christian.
Here is what you said...so I am not confusing your words. Maybe I was reading into it incorrectly, if that is the case...I apologize.
I posted recently that psychiatry/psychology has enough clout in today's culture that they are actually allowed to testify in court cases as "expert witnesses" as to why someone behaves as they do. They just explain away spirit possession and get really dangerous people off (like this guy who shot the congresswoman in Tucson) and cause harmless people (many times believers) to be incarcerated. But it doesn't stop there.
What they would ultimately like to do is to require EVERYBODY to have a psych exam as soon as they can talk. They'll have their syndromes, their personality profiles, all their 'ducks in a row' and they will decide that some 2 year olds have "dangerous potential" based on that data, so they'll make said 2 year olds take meds that will prevent that so called dangerous potential. They'll likely decide that for children from families with long lines of Christianity in them. Dr. Mengela would have been proud.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Sounds like you have a LOT of different "they's". Are "they" all one big "they",
or are there many independent "theys" that lack specific names?
"They" is INCREDIBLY vague- and thus INCREDIBLY CONVENIENT.
No need to communicate clearly-just be vague and insult people who want specifics
and clear communication.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
It's the multinational T.H.E.Y. oranization, of course.
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I want to be a "they".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Things usually work out for the best if you just be "yourself".
(At least that's what Grandpa Waysider used to tell me.)
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Is targeting the two year old children of Christians for medication evaluation actually in the care act?
Wouldn't surprise me.
quote: If you mean the congress enacting a law which mandated the testing of two year olds and targets the children of Christians in particular then we run into the problem of established law which allows for freedom of religion.
No problem at all. In fact, this would be an effective 'end around' freedom of religion. The 'stated reason' would be in psychological terms, but the real reason would be, as I said, to target Christians.
Maybe Bob Stanley picked the wrong pronoun. His song should have said...
Who are they? Why are they here? What should they do with your life?
'They' is a 3rd person plural pronoun. It applies to many scenerios. Notice I said "if the return happened right now". It could still be centuries away. If it doesn't happen for, say, a hundred years or more, then the current so called psychiatry/psychology will be long obsolete by then. Remember, the adversary adapts his methods to the conditions and the times. He can always get done what he wants to get done, but he has to work through humans, so he has to work through what humans use. Right NOW? Humans definitely use psychiatry/psychology in a big way. Thankfully, we believers have the guarantee that "he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way". No matter how bad it gets in the world, the light of the body of Christ will keep the adversary down until the return, when the light is gone, and darkness can then, for a season, take over completely. 'They' is a 3rd person plural pronoun, nothing more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That's a cop-out, John. When you say "they" are doing this (specific thing) or "they" are saying that (specific thing), you need to be ready to identify (specifically) the object of your reference. Otherwise, it's all idle babble. Meaningless. Unworthy of consideration or response.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Common trolling techniques to cause a stir. Not sure if John knows it or not, some trolls are unwitting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
He did....the devil.
I remember once, as a WOW, I thought I got the most amazing revelation from God.....it was Satan who had formed all these other groups, labeled cults, like the Moonies etc...so that Satan could label TWI a cult and that would keep people from the truth. It was shortly after someone reached out to me and told me TWI was a cult. Seriously....it was from God's lips to my ear.
My mind was toast and I was so mentally isolated from anyone who could help me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Lets turn that around for a minute.
Rather than people agents of the devil, cult agents of truth, let's look at people agents of truth, cult agents of the devil.
If your theory is true : the devil could isolate you from the truth by telling you people who are saying a particular institution is a cult. Then why isn't it equally viable that the devil can isolate you from the truth by having the people in the cult tell you those that are trying to warn you are devil spirits?
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
It wasn't true...I wasn't hearing from God, I was hearing voices, in my mind! I told myself that. :) There was no revelation from God.
I was so wrapped up in seeing the world the way TWI theology presents it....I went a little nutty. That is how I processed and filtered information while in TWI...through TWI theology and the filter of seeing the devil behind everything except TWI.
Ironic right? Not really very healthy ... is it?
Not only did TWI isolate us from society...but, I think it was a gateway for a few mental illnesses!
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
This goes back to pfal; centers of reference for truth. VPs point was that if you have multiple centers of reference for truth (not facts), then you risk being in mental confusion. Whether anybody agrees with pfal doctrine or not, each of us has to pick our own center(s) of reference for truth, reality, whatever you prefer to call it. Jesus did it: "I am the way the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me!" Many college educated people have science and their philosophical 'flavor of the month' as their center of reference. It's not that big of a deal, really.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
And, conveniently, that helped VP with his next logical point, which was to make VP your center of reference for truth. Oh, but you'll say, he never said that, didn't want that, in reality pointed people towards "The Word" as "our only rule of faith and practice."
You see, this is why in the Bible Jesus warns us about false prophets and false teachers - wolves in sheep's clothing. It is also why he teaches his disciples to know people "by their fruits" rather than by their words.
You see VP - by his fruit would not listen to the Word as people's only rule of faith and practice. There are many accounts of that here, one of the most notable being John Schoenheit writing the paper on adultery. If VP's words were how he lived, no problem. However, John was fired for writing a paper saying adultery is wrong. In practice, what VP meant by "the Word, the Word, and nothing but the Word" was "VP's words, VP's words, and nothing but VP's words". He expected the Corps to jump at his words teaching them "the suggestion of a general is tantamount to a command". This pervading culture permeated all of TWI, and has carried forward to two generations of successing presidents.
In comparison, having Newton's laws, or Skinner's behaviorism as your center of reference is far less damaging to a person's self and the others around them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Like any master of politics he created a problem: what's your central reference for truth? Then he presented the solution: PFAL, or Saint Vic's interpretation of the Word.
It could be argued that his interpretation was not a true interpretation, if for nothing else for the reasons Chockfull innumerated: his fruit and he didn't follow the word himself.
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
in navigation there's a thing called triangulation - the navigator determines the location of a point by measuring angles to it from other known location points.
~~
it's just my opinion - but if one was a researcher navigating through a vast forest of data to find the most accurate details on a topic - i think it would be wise to check multiple reference points.
i'm thinking that's the way most normal folks develop a belief system. they take a little from this, a little from that - some things they read here, there - from experiences and observations. but vp wasn't big on critical thinking either - he taught all great inventions come by revelation. from his teachings i got the impression you didn't need any "worldly" knowledge or wisdom. so why then would you ever want to learn from anyone else besides him. In order for a grad to become "successful" , PFAL must be the ONLY reference point for learning.
i think vp's model of learning mentioned in PFAL is what leads to confusion - which for all practical purposes boils down to the student adopting/absorbing the PFAL/TWI tunnel-vision mindset. The "light" at the end of that tunnel is the glowing ember of vp's cigarette butt.
~~
edited to get to the point or multiple points....whichever comes first....
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
He wasn't big on YOU being a critical thinker. Nor YOU needing any worldly wisdom.
The law of believing: world wisdom. There's nothing in the bible to support giving equals recieving (yes, I know its a misnomer).
The original sin: world wisdom palmed off as revelation. The bible makes no mention of what the original sin was.
and on and on.
This was a method of control that kept people in little boxes. If they turned to some "worldly wisdom" sources, believers may have found the sources he plagerized or realized just how full of horse apples Saint Vic was.
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Why do you even CARE what da vicster had to say?
honestly. If in middle of the first session of pfal, he stated that "the earth is not flat, it is a (slightly) oblate spheroid.."
I would have to document it with a different source before I'd believe it..
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.