Hi Grease Spotters - and a great big warm welcome to newcomers!
Personally I don’t buy into this “pure evil” model, a popular straw man argument used here and elsewhere by a certain poster.
I usually lean heavily on a biblical model - how the Bible delineates the traits and tactics of false teachers, hypocrites, predators, exploitative “leaders”, etc. and especially take note in the passages that address these treacherous folks - you’ll see the Bible doesn’t cut them any slack or water down the criticism by saying look for the good in their life or work...I’m of the opinion the evil they do more or less nullifies anything of merit
that’s not to say there was nothing to see that might be considered good - but it does make one wonder if anything - a teaching, a kind gesture, etc. was just for show, the bait in a trap or whatever to serve their hidden agenda; I tend to think they are all truly opportunists at heart if you ask me.
Makes me think of the scandal of the Olympic physician Larry Nassar; don’t see a whole lot of folks standing up for him saying “but look at the good that he did...some of those YOUNG GIRLS he molested won Olympic metal.” Excuse me while I barf...sorry, but I can’t even fathom the empathetic disconnect if someone were to think like that.
I've heard it argued even though Marconi took the work of scientists and engineers and made his own patents, and got rich, he brought something useful to everyday people. We still use radio today and probably think little on how it got here. The people who actually did the work to discover the principles, did not benefit anywhere near what Marconi did.
So, what's all this called for positivity do for the people who Saint Vic plagerized? What's this call for positivity do for the women Saint Vic forced himself on?
Where in the bible does it say "Positivity will set you free"? I can, however, point out in the bible where it says The truth will set you free (John 8:32).
So, explain to me the good that can come from stealing others works and someone forcing themself on women.
You want to talk about a Pure Evil model. Have you read any of your posts recently?
All the negitivity launched at other posters. According to you they're constantly trying to trick you, or trip you up, or attacking you.
What's your model for people in this forum?
Maybe you should try a few cc's of positivity toward other posters before you start criticizing.
When I post, the multiple responses, each with multiple points, makes that circumspect walk impossible, unless I limit my posts to staying away from everyone's major hot buttons. That's very difficult with the volume of points.
Avoiding hot buttons is all the more impossible when my main message is totally in opposition to the main message constantly being perfected here after almost 2 decades, which is the Pure Evil model of VPW.
***
The great good that came to grads (mostly non-Corp) was like what no organized teaching had been able to produce since the first century. That fact is totally annihilated here, and none are sensitive to the contradiction this manufactures: great praise and respect is often heaped to VPW's teachers and sources, but when they appear in written PFAL they must be opposed as Pure Evil. That is total Bullsheet that no one here wants to confront.
SURE there is some good here given to TWI captives and refugees, but that good will NOT help them with other things in life, especially if they deprogram themselves (at GSC encouraging) away from tons of that great good they did get from PFAL. Of course, this applies not to TWI newbies after 1995 who never saw the PFAL film class.
I don't see anyone here developing or pointing to any teachers that seriously threaten the devil's status quo grip on religion. If anyone thinks there IS a ministry or minister out there that can do kind of the great good PFAL did (minus Corps interference) start a thread and debate one candidate for great good against another.
Imagine that: a debate here on the great good of certain ministries and people!
Bur instead of brainstorming and searching for such truths, the Pure Evil model here demands that great effort go into HIDING the great good that is in PFAL.
***
I posted some theories recently of psychologists who are noticing in the political landscape how people there seem to have a great hunger for villainous enemies. I started noticing this same thing in my friends in the spoken word Open Mic scene I engaged in from 2002-2008.I once did an experiment to look very closely at all they wrote and spoke at one point during an election at that time. A certain candidate suddenly appeared whom nobody knew. I watched it take exactly one day and a half for them to figure out how to scream “villain” at the top or their literary lungs.
I see the same human dynamics working here.Like I said to my political friend lately on Facebook, this is not good for anyone’s mental and physical health. I’m not worried about my health; it’s for yours (plural) that I’m recommending changes. My poet friends had no concept of the truth that you can’t fight evil with more evil. Is that well known here?
***
I have a model where the great good of PFAL is quite distinct and different from the character flaws of VPW.I think I’m the only one here that can say that some certain teachings will help us all greatly.
Does anyone here (who still believes in Jesus Christ) witness aggressively any more?If so WHAT do you witness? Pre-1942 churchianity?Churchianity with a New Age twist? Is your work threatening the adversary’s kingdom in any way? Do you get great opposition to such work? Do the people who buy what you witness get deliverance and proclaim great thankfulness to you?Does anyone here still get the benefits of SIT and still ABLE to teach others?
Yes, this appears to be a crucial difficulty with drawing a parallel here.
VPW may have copied the works but he brought it to everyone is the Wayfer retort. Prevailing Word over the World. Or something. Golly gee I'm so thankful.
God owned the whole world, but gave it to Adam, and Adam gave it to the adversary. But God still owned the revelations He gave to VPW’s sources. God gave VPW permission to use the revelations and the guidance to steer away from stuffy, churchy, formal citations that would not be needed by new students, clutter up their learning experience, and expose them to the errors in those other writings.
4 hours ago, So_crates said:
The second, most obvious question, How do you know God gave him permission to steal others works?
The above is another question you apparently didn't have time to answer.
As it's the crux of your argument, one would think you would make time to answer it.
So, once again, how do you know God gave Saint Vic permission to steal other people's work?
I know I wasn't projecting. Others here are prone to think alike. I'm not at all impressed with such unanimity. I still think it's a good guess.
Did you yet answer me as to why you DID ask me the 2 scripture questions? Were you meekly seeking learning from me? I'm running out of guesses.
If you did answer I missed it in this flurry. Please point it out, but (please) not with a fresh point cluster.
Did you answer me at why you could not predict my answer to the scripture questions?
Did you answer me at why you had no comments on my answers, but went straight for the minor point of projection instead?
Being able to predict my answer should have not been that hard. To see this, please go back and read your questions and my answers again. There was nothing surprising in my answer. It contained several things I had posted many times.
Are you immune to projection? I think you projected projection onto me. If I got a handful of votes in agreement will you seek projection therapy? I'm half joking here.
Really? You KNOW you weren't projecting? That would be a reasonable premise if you actually followed with an explanation of how you so "knew." But you didn't.
I asked you to answer for the two points regarding pride in Proverbs because I wanted you to answer them.
I really don't understand where you're coming from suggesting that I ever tried to predict your answer to any question. That's just subterfuge on your part, misdirection... unless you can point to anywhere that I claimed to predict your answers.
Further, the fact that you're the ONLY one saying anything about an alleged "pure evil model" provides evidence that said model is solely a construct of your imagination (imagined summary interpretation of what you've read on GSC about your hero).
TWI was never supposed to be a democracy or ever held up as one. That would make it totally ineffective. I'm glad it was a (somewhat) benign dictatorship for a while. It had to be to get the job done. Is the US military a democracy? Should it be?
You missed the point. You "voted" "genuine."
Interesting that you would invoke the "US military." How does the US military relate to the way your hero conducted his ministry and established his subculture?
Mike, just repeating this in case you missed it previously.
If you set out any parts of your "thesis" in the manner of the late Steve's papers, or even just his posts, we might be able to fathom your thesis more easily AND you wouldn't get yourself in such a tangle with the ...
... that you complain so much about.
Hi Twinky,
I am familiar with Steve’s posts from 15 years ago. I didn’t like his attitudes then, but I don’t remember why. I vaguely remember him as reminding me of a male churchlady. I could be wrong. I know he didn't like me. BTW, there WERE quite a lot of posters with whom I did have good debates, and they went on for years. Even now I've seen a few who are quite civil; and understanding. I did not get that from him.
Anyone ever heard the story of how Dana Carvy came up with that character?He’d entertain his siblings in the car riding home from church with what they all saw that Sunday.That churchlady character is out there in droves. I had to endure many churchlady Nuns until I was14 years old. Imagine going through puberty with Nuns guiding you. Or maybe not.
I may be confusing him with someone else, but I definitely don’t remember him standing out as much different than most of the present crew here. Re-post one of his super posts and I may have more to go on.
Did I read correctly that he has fallen asleep? I did not know that. It just registered after my second reading or your post.
***
You mentioned my thesis, but I am done with my campaign (here) to promote that, because actually doing in the face of great opposition here means I have to get tough and hurt a lot of feelings and possibly re-open old wounds not totally healed yet. THAT is what I apologized about months ago.
It’s pretty difficult for me to post anything substantial or even tiny here without a firestorm.
I have two topics I'd like to slowly work here: one a tiny bit, the other a lot. The tiny one is Job and negative believing that's already a thread in Doctrinal. The big one is all with/out distinction. There are lots of other things I'd like to talk about. That "neural pruning" thing I brought up should have gotten the attention of anyone with young children or grandchildren. Why did I only get one interested peep, and one poop saying it was BS or distracting or something? Why doesn't something like that cause a flurry of interest? I think I know.
What are my chances of an actual civil, enlightening discussion in front of rabid wannabe deprogrammers?
I know, no matter how many times and how many posts and points I make on the two bigtime topics here (sex and plagiarism), they are all ignored except in how they can be turned against me. I tried once or twice on sex, and MANY, MANY times on plagiarism. Most here cannot produce a civil, lucid recounting from memory even portions of my arguments. I repeat them over and over, and the only things people lok for are targets to shoot at.
So_crates acts like congressmen who tags pork onto needed bills. On nearly any topic he wants to jam in the sex topic. So even on a plagiarism thread that’s what he wants to talk about.Is there a way to block one poster? I’m ready to do that. He doesn’t even want to read my answers to others posts. I can’t answer the same topic 3 times here to 3 different posters. I can’t keep up with all the demanded responses of me. Having a simple conversation is impossible due to the demanded volume of me. If he can’t get it, why I’m moving towards simply ignoring all his posts, someone put yourselves in my shoes and tell him top get real. This paragraph is a test to see if he really ignores my responses to others, or just immediately forgets them.
I don't have the expertise to deal in public with the sex issues, but I do have enough points in my head to make my mind up after 45 years of hearing stories. Long before any posters here (even Ralph) were worried about sex stories and TVT doctrines floating about. in the ministry. I was bothered by it, but by that time in my life that was the norm for me. Everywhere I go I worry about it, so that was nothing new to me in 1972.
I’m definitely not looking for ANY moral guidance here on how sex works, and how it is abused. JUST NONE!That kind of trust needs to be earned not demanded (another huge Corps error).
I spent lots of time 15 years ago in private chats with some of the women who posted that they were hurt, because I CAN RELATE TO THEM! You see, when it comes to sexhurts I’m actually a MeToo person, myself (of a different variety). I just don’t want to talk anymore about it with antagonistic posters in public.
I find here the same kind of dismal ability to relate and understand to things like this that I saw in the Corps and I hear in all the bad stories.The insensitivity that’s often complained about to be exclusivelybelonging to VPW, LCM, and company I see in people here, just a different variety and lacking any real power (thankfully).
Twinky, if you like researching old threads you should see how I was treated when I tried to post any of the primitive understanding of sex I have 15 years ago.People here like to think they are immune to being as big a jerk as LCM. My sure understanding is that we all (WITHOUT EXCEPTION) are capable, properly provoked, of invading Poland if we had the troops. That is a figure of speech illustrating that the old man nature is really stinky and we all suffer from it.
People here think that if they bring up some really disgusting stuff that will break me. It wont. I went through that decades ago. But there is no way I want to get into the details, only to see those details trashed. I see how the MeToo victims have to endure lots of trashing of their thoughts from the insensitive. No thanks.
I have not had an extensive personal education in sex, and it is a troubling issue to me. It's difficult to fight aggressive, unrelenting (and sometimes) the exact kind of attitudes that I had to endure as a child with the Nuns at school.
You mentioned my thesis [DOGMA], but I am done with my campaign (here) to promote that, because actually doing in the face of great opposition here means I have to get tough and hurt a lot of feelings[Oh puhleeze...] and possibly re-open old wounds not totally healed yet. THAT is what I apologized about months ago.
It’s pretty difficult for me to post anything substantial or even tiny here without a firestorm.
I have two topics I'd like to slowly work here: one a tiny bit, the other a lot. The tiny one is Job and negative believing that's already a thread in Doctrinal. The big one is all with/out distinction. There are lots of other things I'd like to talk about. That "neural pruning" thing I brought up should have gotten the attention of anyone with young children or grandchildren. Why did I only get one interested peep, and one poop saying it was BS or distracting or something? Why doesn't something like that cause a flurry of interest? I think I know.
What are my chances of an actual civil, enlightening discussion in front of rabid wannabe deprogrammers? [How is that NOT projecting?]
People here think [your words = evidence of projection] that if they bring up some really disgusting stuff that will break me. It wont. I went through that decades ago. But there is no way I want to get into the details, only to see those details trashed. I see how the MeToo victims have to endure lots of trashing of their thoughts from the insensitive. No thanks.
I have not had an extensive personal education in sex, and it is a troubling issue to me. It's difficult to fight aggressive, unrelenting (and sometimes) the exact kind of attitudes that I had to endure as a child with the Nuns at school.
Poor Mike. Woe is Mike.
Honest question, Mike. Do you, or did you ever, really think GSC was a place your "thesis [dogma]"* would be taken as legitimate?
Has anyone here ever articulated that they are trying to "break you?"
*Dogmatist: noun. "One who asserts positively doctrines or opinions unsupported by argument or evidence."
I know, no matter how many times and how many posts and points I make on the two bigtime topics here (sex and plagiarism), they are all ignored except in how they can be turned against me. I tried once or twice on sex, and MANY, MANY times on plagiarism. Most here cannot produce a civil, lucid recounting from memory even portions of my arguments. I repeat them over and over, and the only things people lok for are targets to shoot at.
So_crates acts like congressmen who tags pork onto needed bills. On nearly any topic he wants to jam in the sex topic. So even on a plagiarism thread that’s what he wants to talk about.Is there a way to block one poster? I’m ready to do that. He doesn’t even want to read my answers to others posts. I can’t answer the same topic 3 times here to 3 different posters. I can’t keep up with all the demanded responses of me. Having a simple conversation is impossible due to the demanded volume of me. If he can’t get it, why I’m moving towards simply ignoring all his posts, someone put yourselves in my shoes and tell him top get real. This paragraph is a test to see if he really ignores my responses to others, or just immediately forgets them.
OKAY! Against my better judgment, I'm going to put something here which I have been keeping a secret for a long, long time. (And I hope the ladies here will not be offended, as though sex is merely some "mechanical thing"!) It has to to with what I deem as "proper lovemaking".
I'm also posting it for "poor, poor Mike", who was so horribly abused by those nuns so long ago...never teaching him much about the subject --- AND also because he said "it is a troubling issue to me", and I would like to help him if that's at all possible.
I'm putting it here (as an attachment in .doc format) so as not to "take over the topic", and because it's rather lengthy. Read it if ya like, and comment if you want to. All in all, it's just something that Spec noticed. Maybe there's truth to it, and maybe not; each can decide for himself. But if you're actually in a position to "try it out with your spouse", I think you both might be pleasantly surprised --- because it hasn't failed for my wife & I in 30 years now. ENJOY!
I am familiar with Steve’s posts from 15 years ago. I didn’t like his attitudes then, but I don’t remember why. I vaguely remember him as reminding me of a male churchlady. I could be wrong. I know he didn't like me. BTW, there WERE quite a lot of posters with whom I did have good debates, and they went on for years. Even now I've seen a few who are quite civil; and understanding. I did not get that from him.
Anyone ever heard the story of how Dana Carvy came up with that character?He’d entertain his siblings in the car riding home from church with what they all saw that Sunday.That churchlady character is out there in droves. I had to endure many churchlady Nuns until I was14 years old. Imagine going through puberty with Nuns guiding you. Or maybe not.
Mike, the reason you get "multiple posters, multiple points" is because YOU introduce them. I have no idea who or what "Dana Carvy" and "churchlady characters" are (and do not waste time by trying to enlighten me), but you have raised this as an answer to something completely different. You also bring in an irrelevant comment about nuns and puberty. That has nothing to do with the ability to write things out clearly.
I suggested to you that you set out your posts in the clear and logical way that Steve set out his posts and particularly his papers (his thesis). I didn't ask if you liked him or agreed with the content; I suggested a format. Instead, you turned that comment into your opinion of the man not the content, and then you introduced yet more irrelevances, the Dana comment and the nuns/puberty thing.
I know you have heard of the phrase "stayed mind." If you "stayed your mind" on what you want to say, and do not allow yourself to be sidetracked with irrelevant comments, you won't have to deal with the responses.
You don't like the way So_Crates sticks with the same thing over and over again. Perhaps that's because he has "stayed mind" to pursue getting an answer to a question. He isn't sidetracking himself with irrelevances. You may think you have answered, but clearly you haven't answered adequately. Likewise, I have asked you the same question multiple times and got more irrelevances but never an answer.
I have to say, I admire your fortitude in staying with your position in face of increasing shouting at you.
I also have to say, I do not admire your ability to refuse to look at facts that may change your position. That is not logical. It is not Godly, either. A wise man, a scholar, a thoughtful person, will continue to gather facts, will listen to a multitude of counsellors, and will change his mind if the evidence points to another conclusion.
Honest question, Mike. Do you, or did you ever, really think GSC was a place your "thesis [dogma]"* would be taken as legitimate?
Has anyone here ever articulated that they are trying to "break you?"
*Dogmatist: noun. "One who asserts positively doctrines or opinions unsupported by argument or evidence."
Mike, Steve had great posts!! They were well-written, and thought-provoking. He knew what he was talking about; God bless him. I remember him with great fondness, and will miss him.
Mike, the reason you get "multiple posters, multiple points" is because YOU introduce them. I have no idea who or what "Dana Carvy" and "churchlady characters" are (and do not waste time by trying to enlighten me), but you have raised this as an answer to something completely different. You also bring in an irrelevant comment about nuns and puberty. That has nothing to do with the ability to write things out clearly.
I suggested to you that you set out your posts in the clear and logical way that Steve set out his posts and particularly his papers (his thesis). I didn't ask if you liked him or agreed with the content; I suggested a format. Instead, you turned that comment into your opinion of the man not the content, and then you introduced yet more irrelevances, the Dana comment and the nuns/puberty thing.
I know you have heard of the phrase "stayed mind." If you "stayed your mind" on what you want to say, and do not allow yourself to be sidetracked with irrelevant comments, you won't have to deal with the responses.
You don't like the way So_Crates sticks with the same thing over and over again. Perhaps that's because he has "stayed mind" to pursue getting an answer to a question. He isn't sidetracking himself with irrelevances. You may think you have answered, but clearly you haven't answered adequately. Likewise, I have asked you the same question multiple times and got more irrelevances but never an answer.
I have to say, I admire your fortitude in staying with your position in face of increasing shouting at you.
I also have to say, I do not admire your ability to refuse to look at facts that may change your position. That is not logical. It is not Godly, either. A wise man, a scholar, a thoughtful person, will continue to gather facts, will listen to a multitude of counsellors, and will change his mind if the evidence points to another conclusion.
Honest question, Mike. Do you, or did you ever, really think GSC was a place your "thesis [dogma]"* would be taken as legitimate?
I like honest questions from you. I'm learning to trust you. It's late and I need to work in the morning, so this is pretty much all I have time for now.
About 20 years I did. I really thought that when I found the last (the really last) teaching it would bring us all back together. But I soon found out that the reason that teaching was so lost was because top leadership only had lost their way. The last teaching had the BIG solution for me, and I really thought it would be a rush back to PFAL to master it for the first time for us all, me included.
That was dashed, not only here, but everywhere I went. Then I settled for just a few to come back and then we could work on helping the rest. That did happen. I made some lifelong friends and we work the written PFAL texts.
Then that petered out to a large degree, and now I'm settling for just fellowshipping and exchanging data with whomever I can. There are still many out there I have never reached...yet.
But my recent complaints are that you folks, instead of settling down and getting back into SOMETHING positive, only want to "celebrate" the errors and abuses.
I understand the captives and refugees of current TWI need help, but I am convinced that the positives of written PFAL would topple TWI's deathgrip on people a lot more than the fighting evil with evil I sense here. HOWEVER, this is less and less the case every year as most TWI peopel never even took the film class. It's all ending with a whimper and not a bang.
I think most TWI refugees (who did talk the PFAL class) want to think that there was SOMETHING good in PFAL (because there is) and will find this place way overboard on the negatives, and delusional about what really did bless us all, that they mostly can't trust this place to help them.
I see these kinds of grads from time to time.
There are many more PFAL lovers (and confused by TWI) that you folks will never see. They will avoid your negative "ministering" of negatives and seek help elsewhere.
About the only thing I think I can do here nowadays is work some small issues. But even that is made impossible by those hungry to fight villains. Do YOU, Rocky, hunger for fellowship with God? What's happening in your life?
I like honest questions from you. I'm learning to trust you. It's late and I need to work in the morning, so this is pretty much all I have time for now.
About 20 years I did. I really thought that when I found the last (the really last) teaching it would bring us all back together. But I soon found out that the reason that teaching was so lost was because top leadership only had lost their way. The last teaching had the BIG solution for me, and I really thought it would be a rush back to PFAL to master it for the first time for us all, me included.
That was dashed, not only here, but everywhere I went. Then I settled for just a few to come back and then we could work on helping the rest. That did happen. I made some lifelong friends and we work the written PFAL texts.
Then that petered out to a large degree, and now I'm settling for just fellowshipping and exchanging data with whomever I can. There are still many out there I have never reached...yet.
But my recent complaints are that you folks, instead of settling down and getting back into SOMETHING positive, only want to "celebrate" the errors and abuses.
I understand the captives and refugees of current TWI need help, but I am convinced that the positives of written PFAL would topple TWI's deathgrip on people a lot more than the fighting evil with evil I sense here. HOWEVER, this is less and less the case every year as most TWI peopel never even took the film class. It's all ending with a whimper and not a bang.
I think most TWI refugees (who did talk the PFAL class) want to think that there was SOMETHING good in PFAL (because there is) and will find this place way overboard on the negatives, and delusional about what really did bless us all, that they mostly can't trust this place to help them.
I see these kinds of grads from time to time.
There are many more PFAL lovers (and confused by TWI) that you folks will never see. They will avoid your negative "ministering" of negatives and seek help elsewhere.
About the only thing I think I can do here nowadays is work some small issues. But even that is made impossible by those hungry to fight villains. Do YOU, Rocky, hunger for fellowship with God? What's happening in your life?
I got to get some sleep. Thanks for listening.
Good post, Mike. I appreciate your response. it's too late this evening for me to post a comprehensive reply. But I can tell you that I DO hunger and thirst for righteousness (Proverbs 2:1-5).
But I don't find it in the oppressive constraints of fundamentalism, including Wierwille's version thereof. There is so much more to life and more to learn about God and godliness than what is in PFLAP and/or in the Bible.
But I don't find it in the oppressive constraints of fundamentalism, including Wierwille's version thereof. There is so much more to life and more to learn about God and godliness than what is in PFLAP and/or in the Bible.
Thanks Rocky.
I too am getting late for work and rushed.
I share your concerns on fundamentalism. I’ve seen problems come up constantly in grads regarding this. It often involves forgetting what we were taught about this in the first session of the class.
Those who can’t control their emotions should not read this, but this is what PFAL page 30,31 says:
“At the next stop a man came to our compartment
in the train saying that he was representing his master
who wanted to come and meet the man of God. He
said his master was so-and-so, a member of Parliament
in New Delhi, who was also riding on the train. The
member of Parliament then came to our compartment
to tell Mrs. Wierwille and me that what he had
seen in Jubbulpore was the most tremendous
Christian event he had ever witnessed – that a man of
God would bless all God’s people irrespective of
whether they were Christian or Hindu.”
How many times have we thought highly of the Hindus?
Also mentioned with praise in “Christians Should Be Prosperous” are the Mormons; not exactly cherished as good neighbors by most fundamentalists. I find Mormons to be wonderful customers and people.
In the AC we heard of the great devotion and discipline of the Jain Dharma, one of India’s oldest religions.
I also like hanging out with Deadheads, an ancient Hippie religion.
But my recent complaints are that you folks, instead of settling down and getting back into SOMETHING positive, only want to "celebrate" the errors and abuses.
I understand the captives and refugees of current TWI need help, but I am convinced that the positives of written PFAL would topple TWI's deathgrip on people a lot more than the fighting evil with evil I sense here. HOWEVER, this is less and less the case every year as most TWI peopel never even took the film class. It's all ending with a whimper and not a bang.
I think most TWI refugees (who did talk the PFAL class) want to think that there was SOMETHING good in PFAL (because there is) and will find this place way overboard on the negatives, and delusional about what really did bless us all, that they mostly can't trust this place to help them.
I see these kinds of grads from time to time.
There are many more PFAL lovers (and confused by TWI) that you folks will never see. They will avoid your negative "ministering" of negatives and seek help elsewhere.
(SNIP)
Hi Mike,
It’s all a matter of perspective …speaking for myself – since I left TWI in ’86, I have settled into something sort of positive…it is practical, helpful, and constructive – it’s a self-directed journey…I have been free to explore many paths – whether philosophical, theological, social, whimsical or whatever to plumb the depths of my existence…a simple pursuit to give my life meaning…
I think people are complicated beings - - and so I tend to think we all go through some type of elaborate evolving convoluted mapping out process to navigate through life.
Regarding my Grease Spot posts - what you may think is the essential focus of my life - or you may believe that this is all I ever think about - is really nothing more than me LOOKING BACK to a specific point in the space-time continuum of my life from the reference point of where I am now…I think being retrospective is something we all do from time to time...that’s how we learn…that’s how we grow.
I certainly don’t celebrate the errors, abuses, exploitation, confusion and frustrations I experienced while I was in TWI – but like any troubling or traumatic aspect of one’s life all that has made me more sensitive to the influences and issues that brought on all that stuff.
perhaps one of the subtle underlying messages on Grease Spot is that there’s a lot more options available during your journey in life. The things of PFAL is certainly one option - but I think the general consensus here is that it’s not a very helpful, practical or constructive option...just saying why limit yourself to one very restrictive option.
Not like I’m perfect now or got all that figured out or I’m over it – but I feel it’s helpful, practical, and constructive to experience the give-and-take on Grease Spot – I get a lot of good things out of the experience and I hope my contribution might do the same for others.
Believe it or not, I do understand what you say about thinking there’s something good in PFAL. Just allow me the freedom to pick and choose that and to utilize it the way I want to. For instance, the keys to the interpretation of the Bible – yes, it was something wierwille plagiarized from Bullinger – but it’s not like Bullinger - or wierwille or PFAL is the final authority on interpreting the Bible or that I agree with a dogmatic view of there being only one possible interpretation of scripture.
I mean, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that you might want to better understand a document written in ancient times / cultures by looking into the context, overall usage of words, original languages, historical and cultural context, blah blah blah - yeah all that - but maybe try to understand things from their ancient worldview to grasp the essence of the message and what particular issue are they addressing in what they say and do.
fyi - it's not a book about science or history or geography - though you may get an idea of the writers' limited and imperfect view of the world back then. Not like we've got everything figured out now in this modern age - science, technology, knowledge is always changing, exploring, growing...my approach to the Bible is maybe along the lines of how I look at my past as I said earlier. What if the Bible is part of a map showing a path of a particular journey of faith?
I see folks dealing with the same basic issues of the human condition - and here I am in the present time trying to relate to how they dealt with all that...maybe I'll learn something.
I think Bullinger and wierwille got locked into a very literal…fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible…I look at the Bible as sort of a product of the times in which it was written…that’s one of the things I think wierwille ignored – I don’t think he realized the Bible and modern man spoke two different “languages” – so he would often squeeze, crunch and mangle science, philosophy or any other modern disciplines to fit into an ancient template…I won’t say the Bible is outmoded – like it’s obsolete or no longer practical...
...I just think in our interpretation of it we should recognize the humanness of scripture – not as another key to how to interpret any particular part – but maybe as an attitude we should adopt when we approach scripture…as something inspired of God – yes – but as something we can relate to since it was written by people - it's asking how did they deal with this particular issue and will that work for me? Whether one views Jesus as human or divine or a combination thereof – I think people relate to him the same way. We look past the cultural setting and accumulated world knowledge of that time and look for what Jesus’ words, actions, and life mean for us today.
Of course if PFAL was given by revelation like the Bible was I'm sure it would fit into the about image very nicely. Maybe another poster could begin that work in order to present some solid evidence of this.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
73
138
52
45
Popular Days
Feb 28
62
Feb 26
51
Mar 28
47
Feb 25
42
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 73 posts
Mike 138 posts
waysider 52 posts
So_crates 45 posts
Popular Days
Feb 28 2018
62 posts
Feb 26 2018
51 posts
Mar 28 2018
47 posts
Feb 25 2018
42 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
Just for the record - I’ve mentioned this before - the definition for “hard hitting” as often associated with tough journalists who do their job - is uncompromisingly direct and honest, especially in
Grace Valerie Claire
Mike, what are you talking about?? I think there is a lot of "good," here at the GSC. For example, if you go back, and read the threads, many people have revealed the real TWI, not the one in your i
DontWorryBeHappy
Hey Mike: Don’t flatter yourself with your fantasy that I am your “opponent” in some grand “debate”. I am NOT your opponent. I feel deep sorrow and pity for you, not opposition. I have already to
T-Bone
Hi Grease Spotters - and a great big warm welcome to newcomers!
Personally I don’t buy into this “pure evil” model, a popular straw man argument used here and elsewhere by a certain poster.
I usually lean heavily on a biblical model - how the Bible delineates the traits and tactics of false teachers, hypocrites, predators, exploitative “leaders”, etc. and especially take note in the passages that address these treacherous folks - you’ll see the Bible doesn’t cut them any slack or water down the criticism by saying look for the good in their life or work...I’m of the opinion the evil they do more or less nullifies anything of merit
that’s not to say there was nothing to see that might be considered good - but it does make one wonder if anything - a teaching, a kind gesture, etc. was just for show, the bait in a trap or whatever to serve their hidden agenda; I tend to think they are all truly opportunists at heart if you ask me.
Makes me think of the scandal of the Olympic physician Larry Nassar; don’t see a whole lot of folks standing up for him saying “but look at the good that he did...some of those YOUNG GIRLS he molested won Olympic metal.” Excuse me while I barf...sorry, but I can’t even fathom the empathetic disconnect if someone were to think like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I've heard it argued even though Marconi took the work of scientists and engineers and made his own patents, and got rich, he brought something useful to everyday people. We still use radio today and probably think little on how it got here. The people who actually did the work to discover the principles, did not benefit anywhere near what Marconi did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Soc, we have a winner!! Great post!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Mike, Donkey Dung!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yes, this appears to be a crucial difficulty with drawing a parallel here.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
VPW may have copied the works but he brought it to everyone is the Wayfer retort. Prevailing Word over the World. Or something. Golly gee I'm so thankful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
The above is another question you apparently didn't have time to answer.
As it's the crux of your argument, one would think you would make time to answer it.
So, once again, how do you know God gave Saint Vic permission to steal other people's work?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
JayDee
Says who?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Really? You KNOW you weren't projecting? That would be a reasonable premise if you actually followed with an explanation of how you so "knew." But you didn't.
I asked you to answer for the two points regarding pride in Proverbs because I wanted you to answer them.
I really don't understand where you're coming from suggesting that I ever tried to predict your answer to any question. That's just subterfuge on your part, misdirection... unless you can point to anywhere that I claimed to predict your answers.
Further, the fact that you're the ONLY one saying anything about an alleged "pure evil model" provides evidence that said model is solely a construct of your imagination (imagined summary interpretation of what you've read on GSC about your hero).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You missed the point. You "voted" "genuine."
Interesting that you would invoke the "US military." How does the US military relate to the way your hero conducted his ministry and established his subculture?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Twinky,
I am familiar with Steve’s posts from 15 years ago. I didn’t like his attitudes then, but I don’t remember why. I vaguely remember him as reminding me of a male churchlady. I could be wrong. I know he didn't like me. BTW, there WERE quite a lot of posters with whom I did have good debates, and they went on for years. Even now I've seen a few who are quite civil; and understanding. I did not get that from him.
Anyone ever heard the story of how Dana Carvy came up with that character? He’d entertain his siblings in the car riding home from church with what they all saw that Sunday. That churchlady character is out there in droves. I had to endure many churchlady Nuns until I was14 years old. Imagine going through puberty with Nuns guiding you. Or maybe not.
I may be confusing him with someone else, but I definitely don’t remember him standing out as much different than most of the present crew here. Re-post one of his super posts and I may have more to go on.
Did I read correctly that he has fallen asleep? I did not know that. It just registered after my second reading or your post.
***
You mentioned my thesis, but I am done with my campaign (here) to promote that, because actually doing in the face of great opposition here means I have to get tough and hurt a lot of feelings and possibly re-open old wounds not totally healed yet. THAT is what I apologized about months ago.
It’s pretty difficult for me to post anything substantial or even tiny here without a firestorm.
I have two topics I'd like to slowly work here: one a tiny bit, the other a lot. The tiny one is Job and negative believing that's already a thread in Doctrinal. The big one is all with/out distinction. There are lots of other things I'd like to talk about. That "neural pruning" thing I brought up should have gotten the attention of anyone with young children or grandchildren. Why did I only get one interested peep, and one poop saying it was BS or distracting or something? Why doesn't something like that cause a flurry of interest? I think I know.
What are my chances of an actual civil, enlightening discussion in front of rabid wannabe deprogrammers?
I know, no matter how many times and how many posts and points I make on the two bigtime topics here (sex and plagiarism), they are all ignored except in how they can be turned against me. I tried once or twice on sex, and MANY, MANY times on plagiarism. Most here cannot produce a civil, lucid recounting from memory even portions of my arguments. I repeat them over and over, and the only things people lok for are targets to shoot at.
So_crates acts like congressmen who tags pork onto needed bills. On nearly any topic he wants to jam in the sex topic. So even on a plagiarism thread that’s what he wants to talk about. Is there a way to block one poster? I’m ready to do that. He doesn’t even want to read my answers to others posts. I can’t answer the same topic 3 times here to 3 different posters. I can’t keep up with all the demanded responses of me. Having a simple conversation is impossible due to the demanded volume of me. If he can’t get it, why I’m moving towards simply ignoring all his posts, someone put yourselves in my shoes and tell him top get real. This paragraph is a test to see if he really ignores my responses to others, or just immediately forgets them.
I don't have the expertise to deal in public with the sex issues, but I do have enough points in my head to make my mind up after 45 years of hearing stories. Long before any posters here (even Ralph) were worried about sex stories and TVT doctrines floating about. in the ministry. I was bothered by it, but by that time in my life that was the norm for me. Everywhere I go I worry about it, so that was nothing new to me in 1972.
I’m definitely not looking for ANY moral guidance here on how sex works, and how it is abused. JUST NONE! That kind of trust needs to be earned not demanded (another huge Corps error).
I spent lots of time 15 years ago in private chats with some of the women who posted that they were hurt, because I CAN RELATE TO THEM! You see, when it comes to sexhurts I’m actually a MeToo person, myself (of a different variety). I just don’t want to talk anymore about it with antagonistic posters in public.
I find here the same kind of dismal ability to relate and understand to things like this that I saw in the Corps and I hear in all the bad stories. The insensitivity that’s often complained about to be exclusively belonging to VPW, LCM, and company I see in people here, just a different variety and lacking any real power (thankfully).
Twinky, if you like researching old threads you should see how I was treated when I tried to post any of the primitive understanding of sex I have 15 years ago. People here like to think they are immune to being as big a jerk as LCM. My sure understanding is that we all (WITHOUT EXCEPTION) are capable, properly provoked, of invadingPoland
People here think that if they bring up some really disgusting stuff that will break me. It wont. I went through that decades ago. But there is no way I want to get into the details, only to see those details trashed. I see how the MeToo victims have to endure lots of trashing of their thoughts from the insensitive. No thanks.
I have not had an extensive personal education in sex, and it is a troubling issue to me. It's difficult to fight aggressive, unrelenting (and sometimes) the exact kind of attitudes that I had to endure as a child with the Nuns at school.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Poor Mike. Woe is Mike.
Honest question, Mike. Do you, or did you ever, really think GSC was a place your "thesis [dogma]"* would be taken as legitimate?
Has anyone here ever articulated that they are trying to "break you?"
*Dogmatist: noun. "One who asserts positively doctrines or opinions unsupported by argument or evidence."
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I have a jack, but I'm not going to help you!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
OKAY! Against my better judgment, I'm going to put something here which I have been keeping a secret for a long, long time. (And I hope the ladies here will not be offended, as though sex is merely some "mechanical thing"!) It has to to with what I deem as "proper lovemaking".
I'm also posting it for "poor, poor Mike", who was so horribly abused by those nuns so long ago...never teaching him much about the subject --- AND also because he said "it is a troubling issue to me", and I would like to help him if that's at all possible.
I'm putting it here (as an attachment in .doc format) so as not to "take over the topic", and because it's rather lengthy. Read it if ya like, and comment if you want to. All in all, it's just something that Spec noticed. Maybe there's truth to it, and maybe not; each can decide for himself. But if you're actually in a position to "try it out with your spouse", I think you both might be pleasantly surprised --- because it hasn't failed for my wife & I in 30 years now. ENJOY!
Proper Lovemaking.doc
Edited by spectrum49grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Mike, the reason you get "multiple posters, multiple points" is because YOU introduce them. I have no idea who or what "Dana Carvy" and "churchlady characters" are (and do not waste time by trying to enlighten me), but you have raised this as an answer to something completely different. You also bring in an irrelevant comment about nuns and puberty. That has nothing to do with the ability to write things out clearly.
I suggested to you that you set out your posts in the clear and logical way that Steve set out his posts and particularly his papers (his thesis). I didn't ask if you liked him or agreed with the content; I suggested a format. Instead, you turned that comment into your opinion of the man not the content, and then you introduced yet more irrelevances, the Dana comment and the nuns/puberty thing.
I know you have heard of the phrase "stayed mind." If you "stayed your mind" on what you want to say, and do not allow yourself to be sidetracked with irrelevant comments, you won't have to deal with the responses.
You don't like the way So_Crates sticks with the same thing over and over again. Perhaps that's because he has "stayed mind" to pursue getting an answer to a question. He isn't sidetracking himself with irrelevances. You may think you have answered, but clearly you haven't answered adequately. Likewise, I have asked you the same question multiple times and got more irrelevances but never an answer.
I have to say, I admire your fortitude in staying with your position in face of increasing shouting at you.
I also have to say, I do not admire your ability to refuse to look at facts that may change your position. That is not logical. It is not Godly, either. A wise man, a scholar, a thoughtful person, will continue to gather facts, will listen to a multitude of counsellors, and will change his mind if the evidence points to another conclusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Mike, Steve had great posts!! They were well-written, and thought-provoking. He knew what he was talking about; God bless him. I remember him with great fondness, and will miss him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Excellent post Twinky! Authoritative, to the point --- and most fair indeed! (the one for Mike, two posts above this one)
Edited by spectrum49grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Twinky, great post!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I like honest questions from you. I'm learning to trust you. It's late and I need to work in the morning, so this is pretty much all I have time for now.
About 20 years I did. I really thought that when I found the last (the really last) teaching it would bring us all back together. But I soon found out that the reason that teaching was so lost was because top leadership only had lost their way. The last teaching had the BIG solution for me, and I really thought it would be a rush back to PFAL to master it for the first time for us all, me included.
That was dashed, not only here, but everywhere I went. Then I settled for just a few to come back and then we could work on helping the rest. That did happen. I made some lifelong friends and we work the written PFAL texts.
Then that petered out to a large degree, and now I'm settling for just fellowshipping and exchanging data with whomever I can. There are still many out there I have never reached...yet.
But my recent complaints are that you folks, instead of settling down and getting back into SOMETHING positive, only want to "celebrate" the errors and abuses.
I understand the captives and refugees of current TWI need help, but I am convinced that the positives of written PFAL would topple TWI's deathgrip on people a lot more than the fighting evil with evil I sense here. HOWEVER, this is less and less the case every year as most TWI peopel never even took the film class. It's all ending with a whimper and not a bang.
I think most TWI refugees (who did talk the PFAL class) want to think that there was SOMETHING good in PFAL (because there is) and will find this place way overboard on the negatives, and delusional about what really did bless us all, that they mostly can't trust this place to help them.
I see these kinds of grads from time to time.
There are many more PFAL lovers (and confused by TWI) that you folks will never see. They will avoid your negative "ministering" of negatives and seek help elsewhere.
About the only thing I think I can do here nowadays is work some small issues. But even that is made impossible by those hungry to fight villains. Do YOU, Rocky, hunger for fellowship with God? What's happening in your life?
I got to get some sleep. Thanks for listening.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Good post, Mike. I appreciate your response. it's too late this evening for me to post a comprehensive reply. But I can tell you that I DO hunger and thirst for righteousness (Proverbs 2:1-5).
But I don't find it in the oppressive constraints of fundamentalism, including Wierwille's version thereof. There is so much more to life and more to learn about God and godliness than what is in PFLAP and/or in the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks Rocky.
I too am getting late for work and rushed.
I share your concerns on fundamentalism. I’ve seen problems come up constantly in grads regarding this. It often involves forgetting what we were taught about this in the first session of the class.
Those who can’t control their emotions should not read this, but this is what PFAL page 30,31 says:
“At the next stop a man came to our compartment
in the train saying that he was representing his master
who wanted to come and meet the man of God. He
said his master was so-and-so, a member of Parliament
inNew Delhi
member of Parliament then came to our compartment
to tell Mrs. Wierwille and me that what he had
seen inJubbulpore was the most tremendous
Christian event he had ever witnessed – that a man of
God would bless all God’s people irrespective of
whether they were Christian or Hindu.”
How many times have we thought highly of the Hindus?
Also mentioned with praise in “Christians Should Be Prosperous” are the Mormons; not exactly cherished as good neighbors by most fundamentalists. I find Mormons to be wonderful customers and people.
In the AC we heard of the great devotion and discipline of the Jain Dharma, one ofIndia
I also like hanging out with Deadheads, an ancient Hippie religion.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hi Mike,
It’s all a matter of perspective …speaking for myself – since I left TWI in ’86, I have settled into something sort of positive…it is practical, helpful, and constructive – it’s a self-directed journey…I have been free to explore many paths – whether philosophical, theological, social, whimsical or whatever to plumb the depths of my existence…a simple pursuit to give my life meaning…
I think people are complicated beings - - and so I tend to think we all go through some type of elaborate evolving convoluted mapping out process to navigate through life.
Regarding my Grease Spot posts - what you may think is the essential focus of my life - or you may believe that this is all I ever think about - is really nothing more than me LOOKING BACK to a specific point in the space-time continuum of my life from the reference point of where I am now…I think being retrospective is something we all do from time to time...that’s how we learn…that’s how we grow.
I certainly don’t celebrate the errors, abuses, exploitation, confusion and frustrations I experienced while I was in TWI – but like any troubling or traumatic aspect of one’s life all that has made me more sensitive to the influences and issues that brought on all that stuff.
perhaps one of the subtle underlying messages on Grease Spot is that there’s a lot more options available during your journey in life. The things of PFAL is certainly one option - but I think the general consensus here is that it’s not a very helpful, practical or constructive option...just saying why limit yourself to one very restrictive option.
Not like I’m perfect now or got all that figured out or I’m over it – but I feel it’s helpful, practical, and constructive to experience the give-and-take on Grease Spot – I get a lot of good things out of the experience and I hope my contribution might do the same for others.
Believe it or not, I do understand what you say about thinking there’s something good in PFAL. Just allow me the freedom to pick and choose that and to utilize it the way I want to. For instance, the keys to the interpretation of the Bible – yes, it was something wierwille plagiarized from Bullinger – but it’s not like Bullinger - or wierwille or PFAL is the final authority on interpreting the Bible or that I agree with a dogmatic view of there being only one possible interpretation of scripture.
I mean, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that you might want to better understand a document written in ancient times / cultures by looking into the context, overall usage of words, original languages, historical and cultural context, blah blah blah - yeah all that - but maybe try to understand things from their ancient worldview to grasp the essence of the message and what particular issue are they addressing in what they say and do.
fyi - it's not a book about science or history or geography - though you may get an idea of the writers' limited and imperfect view of the world back then. Not like we've got everything figured out now in this modern age - science, technology, knowledge is always changing, exploring, growing...my approach to the Bible is maybe along the lines of how I look at my past as I said earlier. What if the Bible is part of a map showing a path of a particular journey of faith?
I see folks dealing with the same basic issues of the human condition - and here I am in the present time trying to relate to how they dealt with all that...maybe I'll learn something.
I think Bullinger and wierwille got locked into a very literal…fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible…I look at the Bible as sort of a product of the times in which it was written…that’s one of the things I think wierwille ignored – I don’t think he realized the Bible and modern man spoke two different “languages” – so he would often squeeze, crunch and mangle science, philosophy or any other modern disciplines to fit into an ancient template…I won’t say the Bible is outmoded – like it’s obsolete or no longer practical...
...I just think in our interpretation of it we should recognize the humanness of scripture – not as another key to how to interpret any particular part – but maybe as an attitude we should adopt when we approach scripture…as something inspired of God – yes – but as something we can relate to since it was written by people - it's asking how did they deal with this particular issue and will that work for me? Whether one views Jesus as human or divine or a combination thereof – I think people relate to him the same way. We look past the cultural setting and accumulated world knowledge of that time and look for what Jesus’ words, actions, and life mean for us today.
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
This image represents ways in which the Bible refers back to itself. "it is written" and soforth.
Squint your eyes it's quite detailed.
Did Bible writers plagiarize? I mean, that's a lot of people over a lot of time writing the most successful book in history, maybe.
Edited by Bolshevikmissing Word (of Gawd)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Of course if PFAL was given by revelation like the Bible was I'm sure it would fit into the about image very nicely. Maybe another poster could begin that work in order to present some solid evidence of this.
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.