Mike, this is a Physics 101 level problem. (Real image vs. Virtual image.) You spent all this time pondering a Physics 101 problem? Well, to each his own. Carry on.
Actually, the mirror riddle is more a language issue. As I explained to cman above, the confusion attached to the riddle is generated by people accidentally drifting from one definition of the word "reverse" to another. At most, it involves simple optics with the language situation.
The Physics that I have enjoyed in recent years is slightly more advanced than Phy 101, in the area of complex, damped, driven oscillators. Dance, for me came from my 40 year hobby of tinkering with toys that could dance. A slinkie was one such toy. I exploit Physics for energy saving tips on high speed dance. I try to dance to every note in a song, even approaching Jerry Garcia's guitar noodling. I was prepped for this kind of dance by 40 years of window cleaning, where I push my body for speed, accuracy, and endurance.
*/*/*
Sorry, Twinky. I just don't buy your perspective, that the PFAL class (and books) is merely man-given. If you look at my perspective, OF COURSE God is allowed to give revelation for a class that would bless many. I saw its benefits in the past, as well as currently. But we debated this for many years. You are not bringing up anything new.
*/*/*
Sorry to ignore you Wordwolf. Too many details; too many repeats. I hope your attention to detail helps in your ministering to people.
Why would you be more curious about my publishing success than in my little mirror explanation to cman here?
Writing a book is one thing; publishing another. Self-publishing is easy and free nowadays. I'm more interested in the circulation of the ideas than paper printing and "official" fame. Most of what I write in recent years on free will first appears in discussion forums with others who are focused on this difficult topic.
I was fascinated by free will because there seems to be no discussion of it in the Bible, yet VPW made a big deal out of it. That was one issue to deal with. Another issue is the fact that free will has been baffling philosophers for centuries, and modern neuroscience seems to be rejecting the notion of free will completely.
It's a tangled issue; more tangled than the mirror riddle.
Interesting take on free will or on an attempt to define it. Since it is limited by the comparison.
Defining free will is a big part of the problem. Classic definitions seem to be more influenced by centuries old philosophy and Medieval religion, than by neuroscience.
I have based my ideas on Daniel Dennett's writings on free will, where new definitions are proposed. From what I see, the free will that the human brain enjoys is very weak, compared to classical descriptions of if. None of it happens immediately, and if any does happen there is a delay involved, and the possible need for repetition.
"Sorry, Twinky. I just don't buy your perspective, that the PFAL class (and books) is merely man-given."
Try not to be too shocked that nearly everybody else doesn't buy that pfal was 'the God-given PFAL class.'
"If you look at my perspective, OF COURSE God is allowed to give revelation for a class that would bless many."
I'd say we all agree that God is "ALLOWED" to do so, that He COULD do so. He can also make purple cows and flying buffaloes from which we would get buffalo wings. Hard to get converts when you don't go past "He COULD do this, therefore he DID do this, and you'd see that if you adopted my worldview for a few months."
" I saw its benefits in the past, as well as currently."
Twinky asked a legitimate question of you, and tossed you a "softball." You declined to answer, and are just being vague on that. Your choice, but it stifles discussion and weakens your case that you REFUSE to get specific at your leisure.
" But we debated this for many years. You are not bringing up anything new."
But he asked about your experience. That wasn't "debating." Other people recognize parts of a conversation. We can discuss things in a manner that they aren't continuous commercials for our pet cause. We can also have casual discussions ABOUT our pet causes. It's not too late for you to TRY to pick up those skills.
"Sorry to ignore you Wordwolf. Too many details; too many repeats."
"Too many repeats" is probably not the best complaint for you, of all people, to lead with. On the other hand, you didn't need to comment on what I said- I just recapped for those tuning in late. You could just stipulate to all that and move on, which is what I expected and you pretty much did. I did post that I was recapping for the others.
"I hope your attention to detail helps in your ministering to people."
It does, and generally in ways you wouldn't expect it to. I've also found it seems to work best when mixed with humility.
"Why would you be more curious about my publishing success than in my little mirror explanation to cman here? "
I thought you'd said all there was to say on your mirror explanation, and I didn't think there was anything to add that wasn't already said. So, I thought of that as an effectively-closed topic. On the other hand, your casual mention of both publishing AND being quoted in someone's reference work raised a few OBVIOUS questions. Since you normally refuse to give direct answers, I thought I'd try a direct question AGAIN and see if, just maybe, you'd answer directly anyway. You're also not the first person I've asked about a book they'd written, and you probably won't be the last.
"Writing a book is one thing; publishing another. Self-publishing is easy and free nowadays. I'm more interested in the circulation of the ideas than paper printing and "official" fame. Most of what I write in recent years on free will first appears in discussion forums with others who are focused on this difficult topic."
See, that's a persistent problem, and one that undermines your credibility. There's no attempt at CLEAR communication- there was an IMPLICATION, DELIBERATE "wiggle-room" was inserted, all to make people GUESS at what you meant, all so later you could deny it and accuse people of misunderstanding you after your DELIBERATE poor communication.
Did you self-publish? Was it a print book, or an e-book if you did self-publish? The reference book- was it also self-published by an amateur author, or did a professional publishing house sign off on the thing?
You INSINUATED that it was all self-publishing, that you made an e-book or something, and someone else did the same and quoted yours. There's no clear statement to that effect, either way.
BTW, if you DID self-publish an e-book, there's nothing wrong with that. However, your casual mention of the book's publication sure made it look like you wanted people to think you were a formally-published writer- which is a much bigger accomplishment and, it seems, wasn't warranted.
"Sorry, Twinky. I just don't buy your perspective, that the PFAL class (and books) is merely man-given."
Try not to be too shocked that nearly everybody else doesn't buy that pfal was 'the God-given PFAL class.'
"If you look at my perspective, OF COURSE God is allowed to give revelation for a class that would bless many."
I'd say we all agree that God is "ALLOWED" to do so, that He COULD do so. He can also make purple cows and flying buffaloes from which we would get buffalo wings. Hard to get converts when you don't go past "He COULD do this, therefore he DID do this, and you'd see that if you adopted my worldview for a few months."
" I saw its benefits in the past, as well as currently."
Twinky asked a legitimate question of you, and tossed you a "softball." You declined to answer, and are just being vague on that. Your choice, but it stifles discussion and weakens your case that you REFUSE to get specific at your leisure.
" But we debated this for many years. You are not bringing up anything new."
But he asked about your experience. That wasn't "debating." Other people recognize parts of a conversation. We can discuss things in a manner that they aren't continuous commercials for our pet cause. We can also have casual discussions ABOUT our pet causes. It's not too late for you to TRY to pick up those skills.
Thanks, WW. Saved me the trouble.
Apologies for the accidental strikethrough. I can't get rid of it. Unintentional
"Sorry, Twinky. I just don't buy your perspective, that the PFAL class (and books) is merely man-given."
Try not to be too shocked that nearly everybody else doesn't buy that pfal was 'the God-given PFAL class.'
"If you look at my perspective, OF COURSE God is allowed to give revelation for a class that would bless many."
I'd say we all agree that God is "ALLOWED" to do so, that He COULD do so. He can also make purple cows and flying buffaloes from which we would get buffalo wings. Hard to get converts when you don't go past "He COULD do this, therefore he DID do this, and you'd see that if you adopted my worldview for a few months."
" I saw its benefits in the past, as well as currently."
Twinky asked a legitimate question of you, and tossed you a "softball." You declined to answer, and are just being vague on that. Your choice, but it stifles discussion and weakens your case that you REFUSE to get specific at your leisure.
" But we debated this for many years. You are not bringing up anything new."
But he asked about your experience. That wasn't "debating." Other people recognize parts of a conversation. We can discuss things in a manner that they aren't continuous commercials for our pet cause. We can also have casual discussions ABOUT our pet causes. It's not too late for you to TRY to pick up those skills.
"Sorry to ignore you Wordwolf. Too many details; too many repeats."
"Too many repeats" is probably not the best complaint for you, of all people, to lead with. On the other hand, you didn't need to comment on what I said- I just recapped for those tuning in late. You could just stipulate to all that and move on, which is what I expected and you pretty much did. I did post that I was recapping for the others.
"I hope your attention to detail helps in your ministering to people."
It does, and generally in ways you wouldn't expect it to. I've also found it seems to work best when mixed with humility.
"Why would you be more curious about my publishing success than in my little mirror explanation to cman here? "
I thought you'd said all there was to say on your mirror explanation, and I didn't think there was anything to add that wasn't already said. So, I thought of that as an effectively-closed topic. On the other hand, your casual mention of both publishing AND being quoted in someone's reference work raised a few OBVIOUS questions. Since you normally refuse to give direct answers, I thought I'd try a direct question AGAIN and see if, just maybe, you'd answer directly anyway. You're also not the first person I've asked about a book they'd written, and you probably won't be the last.
"Writing a book is one thing; publishing another. Self-publishing is easy and free nowadays. I'm more interested in the circulation of the ideas than paper printing and "official" fame. Most of what I write in recent years on free will first appears in discussion forums with others who are focused on this difficult topic."
See, that's a persistent problem, and one that undermines your credibility. There's no attempt at CLEAR communication- there was an IMPLICATION, DELIBERATE "wiggle-room" was inserted, all to make people GUESS at what you meant, all so later you could deny it and accuse people of misunderstanding you after your DELIBERATE poor communication.
Did you self-publish? Was it a print book, or an e-book if you did self-publish? The reference book- was it also self-published by an amateur author, or did a professional publishing house sign off on the thing?
You INSINUATED that it was all self-publishing, that you made an e-book or something, and someone else did the same and quoted yours. There's no clear statement to that effect, either way.
BTW, if you DID self-publish an e-book, there's nothing wrong with that. However, your casual mention of the book's publication sure made it look like you wanted people to think you were a formally-published writer- which is a much bigger accomplishment and, it seems, wasn't warranted.
WW, don't you know by now that Mike's "superpower" is obfuscation?
So the idea is that if specific things come together than things happen. And these things that contribute to the outcome, and the outcome itself, are, or can be known. Some kind of scientific or philosophical formula that is supposed to work. Here this idea is being applied to the human mind.
This is the premise of PFAL. And this is why it fails.
The defining of free will, and emphasis, is overstated for one. That you can present ideas, factors, thoughts, scripture, truth, lies or other things and get a specific outcome every time. Oh! but wait! if the outcome does not happen than you must not be believing, or FREE WILLING to believe one or more of these ingredients. Like some kind of cookbook.
God was left out of the class, and taken over by things that we are supposed to do and believe. Somehow the message of not by my own works is lost.
I'm not sure that God was left out of the class; but certainly Jesus was. I found myself in later years with a deeper knowledge of God, and very little of Jesus and what he did and accomplished. That's because the gospels were ignored, and instead, the focus was only really on the epistles. Only passingly touched the OT.
God-conscious, but not Jesus-conscious. Still working on that.
So the idea is that if specific things come together than things happen. And these things that contribute to the outcome, and the outcome itself, are, or can be known. Some kind of scientific or philosophical formula that is supposed to work. Here this idea is being applied to the human mind.
This is the premise of PFAL. And this is why it fails.
The defining of free will, and emphasis, is overstated for one. That you can present ideas, factors, thoughts, scripture, truth, lies or other things and get a specific outcome every time. Oh! but wait! if the outcome does not happen than you must not be believing, or FREE WILLING to believe one or more of these ingredients. Like some kind of cookbook.
God was left out of the class, and taken over by things that we are supposed to do and believe. Somehow the message of not by my own works is lost.
Excellent point, Cman !
And that got me thinking...what if ignoring the way God works was also left out of the class. I believe it was all too often that God worked in the lives of people despite what TWI-leadership said or did.
wierwille taught us to ignore feelings - “feelings come and go” . Maybe that muddied the whole process of how a person grows in the faith. I tend to think Christianity is a mysterious blend of intuition and logic. The “intuition” part allows room for God to work in my life – how he does that is way beyond me and probably different for others since we are all unique individual beings – so I’m not going to attempt to confine him in some little theological box...and furthermore to be clear – overall I don’t think PFAL pitted intuition against logic – but rather intuition versus wierwille’s logical fallacies and skewed theology.
Christianity is about God and people. The two great commandments are love God and neighbor. We are social beings. Reflecting on when I was in - it seems to me now that the subculture of the The Way International was counterproductive to how God works with people and situations and even how people work with each other...even if you want to disregard the spiritual possibilities of intuition, I believe hobbling our interpersonal skills can do a lot more harm than good...for instance, wierwille teaching people to ignore or suppress intuition laid the groundwork for spiritual, emotional and sexual abuse by him and others.
I Googled “intuition versus analytical thinking” and found some interesting articles. The following excerpt got me thinking that instead of pitting intuition against logic we should acknowledge we need both and determine what the situation calls for:
"...One of the themes that came out in the discussion was the need to find a balance between intuitive and analytical thinking. (This is a position I argued in my blog post “Are You an Intuitive or Analytical Thinker?" ) Our intuitions have been finely honed over evolutionary history for making quick decisions in the social realm. Within seconds, we know whether we like some or not, whether we trust them or not. We’re also remarkably good at predicting each other’s behavior in the moment.
Beyond the social realm, however, our intuitions often lead us astray—and often in predictable ways. And that’s where analytical thinking becomes important. Even if our rapid-response intuitive system is wrong, our slower, more effortful analytical system can bring us to the best decision.
And so we come to the question from the audience: “If you could only have one mode of thinking in your life—intuitive or analytical—which would you choose?”
I, the analytical scientist, quickly responded: “Of course you need both.” "
As the above excerpt mentioned outside of social settings, analytical thinking is important. And I believe it does have its place in Christianity – I think of things like personal Bible study, preaching, teaching, systematic theology...PFAL and wierwille come up short in that category too. That’s why I said earlier PFAL pitted intuition against wierwille’s logical fallacies and skewed theology. Students in the PFAL class were browbeaten into agreeing with the teacher. Evidently wierwille thought very little of critical and creative thinking skills in saying “you can’t go beyond what you're taught”.
PFAL was a formula – a tried and “true” method for TWI’s feeble never-ending "membership drives". As a general rule of thumb, if after a certain length of time (it could be weeks or months until another PFAL class would start) Twig fellowship newcomers didn’t show any real interest in taking the class, then gung-ho Way-believers lost interest in them.
The thought of wierwille being God’s spokesman and PFAL being a modern day epistle was the basis for the way corps program. Anyone who has ever been through the program and tells you otherwise is probably still in TWI or the TWI mindset is still in them...
...and advocating a return to PFAL "because we missed so much and didn't get it right the first time" is absurdity to the Nth degree!
...I recall the fervent adulation I used to have for wierwille when I was involved with TWI - and at such reflective sobering moments like that it now makes me wonder at what point did I cross the line. the definition of idolatry is extreme admiration, love or reverence for something or someone.
And that got me thinking...what if ignoring the way God works was also left out of the class. I believe it was all too often that God worked in the lives of people despite what TWI-leadership did.
There we have, in a nutshell, the entirety of Wierwille's get rich quick scheme... people have extremely limited ability to discern even factual information, let alone truth about God and spirituality. Yet, it is a very deep and very human longing, to know God.
Put simply, Mike believes in his god, VP, because that's what works for him. WE, OTOH, long ago jettisoned VP as our savior because it no longer worked for us, overridden by massive quantities of cognitive dissonance.
Did something happen to the GreaseSpot archives? I know that there were several software changes complicating such an archive.
I am in touch with several civilized TWI people who are saying TWI has calmed down and "won't cha come on back home" attitudes are abounding there now.
I say to them, GREAT, please give me the name of the TWI official who is in charge of reparations, so I can send him a copy of the GreaseSpot Archive.
Here is another thing I said to one such friendly TWI person about this:
"There are all kinds of reparations (repair-ations) that can be done, regardless of the attitudes of the victims.
"For instance, a major reparation (repair job) would be to resurrect the decision process that went into banning the “John Scheonheit Paper on Adultery” in 1986.
"That banning decision and process should be revealed and all the names revealed that sighed off on it. Then we can ask them personally if they still think there was no need for that paper.
"I especially want to know which official it was that stated that anyone who even READS the paper is in danger of devil possession and believing in the Trinity. Then, an apology should be sent to all those who were kicked out over it.
"Just like TWI keeps track of all their successes, there should be an entire book published by TWI where their whole process downward is documented: from rejecting VPW before his death, to the Scheionheit paper, to complete abdication of the ministry to Chris Geer for two years…. and on, and on.
"These things are all in our memory, and documented in the Grease Spot Café’s archives. They won’t go away.
TWI once had the greatest teaching in the world contrary to stinky religion, and then THEY BECAME the biggest, cultist, stinkiest religion I have ever seen.
"I think it is smarter to admit to it all, own up to having handed the whole ministry over to the devil.
"If TWI officials were to reach out to us for help in their recovery, that could be respected.
"They are very guilty and pretending to have no problems.Them, pretending that the worst of the worst never happened there, and denying the complete failure there for decades, is not respectable.
"I can greatly respect you for facing us here in this matter. Why are no TWI officials doing what you are doing? Someone like you needs to minister to the TWI officials. They need to face the music."
I am in touch with several civilized TWI people who are saying TWI has calmed down and "won't cha come on back home" attitudes are abounding there now.
These things are all in our memory, and documented in the Grease Spot Café’s archives. They won’t go away.
TWI once had the greatest teaching in the world contrary to stinky religion, and then THEY BECAME the biggest, cultist, stinkiest religion I have ever seen.
"I think it is smarter to admit to it all, own up to having handed the whole ministry over to the devil.
I think this is a misdiagnosis of the problem - an incorrect conclusion regarding the cause of an unwelcome, difficult and harmful situation. I believe it is based on a faulty assumption that TWI ONCE had the greatest (superior to all others in the world) teacher and teachings.
Setting aside the malfeasance of wierwille’s unabashed plagiarism for a moment - there is much more at issue than just him stealing other people’s work. It’s actually a little more complex than that. There are several hidden false assumptions...there are at least 5 (but not necessarily limited to just 5) that I can think of right off the bat:
Faulty assumption #1:
The material that wierwille copied from others was completely correct or valid. This does not refer to any particular passage of the Bible but rather to the ideas, principles, interpretations, doctrines and speculations that other authors would abstract from the Bible. (Bullinger’s teaching that there were 4 crucified with Jesus Christ comes to mind).
Faulty assumption #2:
wierwille was competent...or qualified to understand, analyze, fine tune, correct, clarify or improve the material of others.
Faulty assumption #3:
wierwille had help from God to synthesize and accurize the aggregate formed from the teachings of others.
Faulty assumption #4:
TWI became a HARMFUL cult after deviating from the teachings of wierwille; a cult is a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular person or object; a cult is considered HARMFUL ...DAMAGING...DETRIMENTAL ...ABUSIVE to others when what is venerated is a dishonest, delusional, narcissistic megalomaniac like wierwille.
Faulty assumption #5:
TWI was a genuine Christian ministry...a biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry and that through loss of wierwille’s leadership, negligence , erroneous judgments, bad decisions or whatever gave over control, possession or responsibility of TWI to the devil...to the contrary , there are actually much more plausible options than shifting blame to the devil - like basing a ministry on some lying, thieving, cheating, money grubbing sexual predator who lived like the devil - meaning wierwille with great speed, effort and intensity lived an amoral life.
Did something happen to the GreaseSpot archives? I know that there were several software changes complicating such an archive.
[Mike, if you mean the "Greasespot Cafe Documents and Audio Archives", there's a pinned thread at the top of the "About The Way" forum. You can still access the content.]
I am in touch with several civilized TWI people who are saying TWI has calmed down and "won't cha come on back home" attitudes are abounding there now.
(snip)
twi has hemmoraged almost all its members. They have nothing to offer new people. They are unable to get their current members to produce enormous litters of fast-maturing offspring that they could soak for income (impossible for several reasons, of course.) So, with nothing to offer people who've never heard of twi, they're pretty desperate for "new" (old, returning) members they can soak for more income/ Social Security checks. So, the few people left inside are told to be especially nice to people like you, and see if they can rope you in all over again. twi has "calmed down" in the sense that it is boring and putting people to sleep, and no longer has the luxury of chasing off lukewarm members who still give them money or buy their products. hq was never your home, no matter what you were told.
I think this is a misdiagnosis of the problem - an incorrect conclusion regarding the cause of an unwelcome, difficult and harmful situation. I believe it is based on a faulty assumption that TWI ONCE had the greatest (superior to all others in the world) teacher and teachings.
I'm confident, T-Bone, that you know there's no arguing facts with Mike. There's no proving or disproving your assumptions. People (like Mike and JohnIam) believe, or profess to believe, what Wierwille taught. They're going to believe what they want to believe. Logic and rational, objective proof be dammed.
I'm confident, T-Bone, that you know there's no arguing facts with Mike. There's no proving or disproving your assumptions. People (like Mike and JohnIam) believe, or profess to believe, what Wierwille taught. They're going to believe what they want to believe. Logic and rational, objective proof be dammed.
Yeah, Rocky - I’ve realized that a long time ago... as always there’s actually 2 reasons I post. My target audience is other folks whether in or out of TWI who have some doubts, questions, want to sort things out or maybe just looking for validation of some thoughts they’ve had so they check out Grease Spot...and as far as anyone else who still believes wierwille was the greatest - my posts may be a glimmer of hope to escape the nonsense. I never write anyone off or demonize them like wierwille and other TWI leadership would do - mark and avoid...declare someone is wrong seed...possessed...tricked by the devil.
To me, everything about "The Mike Wars" is encapsulated in the following:
Mike believes PFAL is God-breathed.
PFAL defines the qualities of the God-breathed Word.
PFAL does not meet the qualities of the God-breathed Word.
PFAL is not God-breathed.
The end.
I truly don't understand why it's still a conversation, except that Mike (like every religious adherent before and after him) simply ignores the evidence to the contrary and insists his position has "stood the test of time" for the simple reason that he refuses to abandon it. The test of time is not relevant. The test of critical analysis is.
Here's what we did NOT address in "The Mike Wars."
PFAL is not God-breathed IF it is correct about the qualities of the God-breathed Word.
The Bible is not God-breathed if PFAL is correct about the qualities of the God-breathed Word.
Now, here's the amusing thing: The Bible never claims, of itself, that it is God-breathed. The Bible actually makes ZERO claims about itself, because the Bible is not an "It." It's a collection of many books, only a very few of which even recognize the mere existence of other books in the collection.
When "Paul" wrote "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," he was in all likelihood not talking about his own letters, and all but certainly not referring to gospels that had yet to be written.
Is PFAL God-breathed.
I can't participate in the discussion anymore. Nothing is God-breathed.
But if you want to engage, you need to be consistent: If PFAL is not God breathed, what's your standard for reaching that conclusion, and does the Bible itself meet that standard? If not, how does anyone deny Mike's position (my original answer still holds).
I'm confident, T-Bone, that you know there's no arguing facts with Mike. There's no proving or disproving your assumptions. People (like Mike and JohnIam) believe, or profess to believe, what Wierwille taught. They're going to believe what they want to believe. Logic and rational, objective proof be dammed.
This is true. We argued the facts already, and I am done. I'll happily help someone with a hungry heart to learn, who wants to sort thru them all. But I see no value in my trying to get all those ducks in a row again.
Years ago there was great value to me and to a few others (so they tell me) for me to dredge through all those things. There was a lively audience here of widely mixed interests. I gathered much data from them and gave much data back in return. But that audience is now spent.
Every point mentioned in this thread has been addressed numerous times in the past. I pretty much only came back to say hello and shmooze a little. In my mind the debate is over... long over.
This is true. We argued the facts already, and I am done. I'll happily help someone with a hungry heart to learn, who wants to sort thru them all. But I see no value in my trying to get all those ducks in a row again.
Years ago there was great value to me and to a few others (so they tell me) for me to dredge through all those things. There was a lively audience here of widely mixed interests. I gathered much data from them and gave much data back in return. But that audience is now spent.
Every point mentioned in this thread has been addressed numerous times in the past. I pretty much only came back to say hello and shmooze a little. In my mind the debate is over... long over.
"I'll happily help someone with a hungry heart to learn, who wants to sort thru them all..." IOW, someone who is still gullible and hasn't worked it out to their own satisfaction already.
"Years ago there was great value... for me to dredge through all those things... that audience is now spent." IOW, the window for me to mindf*** those people is long gone.
I pretty much only came back to say hello and shmooze a little.
So come and join some other threads NOT related to TWI, PFAL, or anything of like nature. Schmooze away in Open about the dancing you've been doing. Chat about a book you read. Tell a few jokes.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
35
61
34
37
Popular Days
May 10
27
May 7
25
Feb 18
16
Feb 16
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 35 posts
T-Bone 61 posts
Twinky 34 posts
Bolshevik 37 posts
Popular Days
May 10 2021
27 posts
May 7 2021
25 posts
Feb 18 2022
16 posts
Feb 16 2022
14 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
Hello Mike. I've kinda missed you round here. Could always rely on you to make a point that would stir up Cafe denizens. Was wondering what had happened to you. You went away to study PFAL more de
Raf
Am I the only one who thinks Bullinger's Figures of Speech sound a WHOLE LOT like Harry Potter spells? Condescensio! Hypocatastasis! Asyndeton! Polysyndeton! Expecto-Runaroundem!
cman
So the idea is that if specific things come together than things happen. And these things that contribute to the outcome, and the outcome itself, are, or can be known. Some kind of scientific or philo
Posted Images
cman
Interesting take on free will or on an attempt to define it. Since it is limited by the comparison.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Actually, the mirror riddle is more a language issue. As I explained to cman above, the confusion attached to the riddle is generated by people accidentally drifting from one definition of the word "reverse" to another. At most, it involves simple optics with the language situation.
The Physics that I have enjoyed in recent years is slightly more advanced than Phy 101, in the area of complex, damped, driven oscillators. Dance, for me came from my 40 year hobby of tinkering with toys that could dance. A slinkie was one such toy. I exploit Physics for energy saving tips on high speed dance. I try to dance to every note in a song, even approaching Jerry Garcia's guitar noodling. I was prepped for this kind of dance by 40 years of window cleaning, where I push my body for speed, accuracy, and endurance.
*/*/*
Sorry, Twinky. I just don't buy your perspective, that the PFAL class (and books) is merely man-given. If you look at my perspective, OF COURSE God is allowed to give revelation for a class that would bless many. I saw its benefits in the past, as well as currently. But we debated this for many years. You are not bringing up anything new.
*/*/*
Sorry to ignore you Wordwolf. Too many details; too many repeats. I hope your attention to detail helps in your ministering to people.
Why would you be more curious about my publishing success than in my little mirror explanation to cman here?
Writing a book is one thing; publishing another. Self-publishing is easy and free nowadays. I'm more interested in the circulation of the ideas than paper printing and "official" fame. Most of what I write in recent years on free will first appears in discussion forums with others who are focused on this difficult topic.
I was fascinated by free will because there seems to be no discussion of it in the Bible, yet VPW made a big deal out of it. That was one issue to deal with. Another issue is the fact that free will has been baffling philosophers for centuries, and modern neuroscience seems to be rejecting the notion of free will completely.
It's a tangled issue; more tangled than the mirror riddle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Defining free will is a big part of the problem. Classic definitions seem to be more influenced by centuries old philosophy and Medieval religion, than by neuroscience.
I have based my ideas on Daniel Dennett's writings on free will, where new definitions are proposed. From what I see, the free will that the human brain enjoys is very weak, compared to classical descriptions of if. None of it happens immediately, and if any does happen there is a delay involved, and the possible need for repetition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Sorry, Twinky. I just don't buy your perspective, that the PFAL class (and books) is merely man-given."
Try not to be too shocked that nearly everybody else doesn't buy that pfal was 'the God-given PFAL class.'
"If you look at my perspective, OF COURSE God is allowed to give revelation for a class that would bless many."
I'd say we all agree that God is "ALLOWED" to do so, that He COULD do so. He can also make purple cows and flying buffaloes from which we would get buffalo wings. Hard to get converts when you don't go past "He COULD do this, therefore he DID do this, and you'd see that if you adopted my worldview for a few months."
" I saw its benefits in the past, as well as currently."
Twinky asked a legitimate question of you, and tossed you a "softball." You declined to answer, and are just being vague on that. Your choice, but it stifles discussion and weakens your case that you REFUSE to get specific at your leisure.
" But we debated this for many years. You are not bringing up anything new."
But he asked about your experience. That wasn't "debating." Other people recognize parts of a conversation. We can discuss things in a manner that they aren't continuous commercials for our pet cause. We can also have casual discussions ABOUT our pet causes. It's not too late for you to TRY to pick up those skills.
"Sorry to ignore you Wordwolf. Too many details; too many repeats."
"Too many repeats" is probably not the best complaint for you, of all people, to lead with. On the other hand, you didn't need to comment on what I said- I just recapped for those tuning in late. You could just stipulate to all that and move on, which is what I expected and you pretty much did. I did post that I was recapping for the others.
"I hope your attention to detail helps in your ministering to people."
It does, and generally in ways you wouldn't expect it to. I've also found it seems to work best when mixed with humility.
"Why would you be more curious about my publishing success than in my little mirror explanation to cman here? "
I thought you'd said all there was to say on your mirror explanation, and I didn't think there was anything to add that wasn't already said. So, I thought of that as an effectively-closed topic. On the other hand, your casual mention of both publishing AND being quoted in someone's reference work raised a few OBVIOUS questions. Since you normally refuse to give direct answers, I thought I'd try a direct question AGAIN and see if, just maybe, you'd answer directly anyway. You're also not the first person I've asked about a book they'd written, and you probably won't be the last.
"Writing a book is one thing; publishing another. Self-publishing is easy and free nowadays. I'm more interested in the circulation of the ideas than paper printing and "official" fame. Most of what I write in recent years on free will first appears in discussion forums with others who are focused on this difficult topic."
See, that's a persistent problem, and one that undermines your credibility. There's no attempt at CLEAR communication- there was an IMPLICATION, DELIBERATE "wiggle-room" was inserted, all to make people GUESS at what you meant, all so later you could deny it and accuse people of misunderstanding you after your DELIBERATE poor communication.
Did you self-publish? Was it a print book, or an e-book if you did self-publish? The reference book- was it also self-published by an amateur author, or did a professional publishing house sign off on the thing?
You INSINUATED that it was all self-publishing, that you made an e-book or something, and someone else did the same and quoted yours. There's no clear statement to that effect, either way.
BTW, if you DID self-publish an e-book, there's nothing wrong with that. However, your casual mention of the book's publication sure made it look like you wanted people to think you were a formally-published writer- which is a much bigger accomplishment and, it seems, wasn't warranted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Thanks, WW. Saved me the trouble.
Apologies for the accidental strikethrough. I can't get rid of it. Unintentional
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
WW, don't you know by now that Mike's "superpower" is obfuscation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
So the idea is that if specific things come together than things happen. And these things that contribute to the outcome, and the outcome itself, are, or can be known. Some kind of scientific or philosophical formula that is supposed to work. Here this idea is being applied to the human mind.
This is the premise of PFAL. And this is why it fails.
The defining of free will, and emphasis, is overstated for one. That you can present ideas, factors, thoughts, scripture, truth, lies or other things and get a specific outcome every time. Oh! but wait! if the outcome does not happen than you must not be believing, or FREE WILLING to believe one or more of these ingredients. Like some kind of cookbook.
God was left out of the class, and taken over by things that we are supposed to do and believe. Somehow the message of not by my own works is lost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
This
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I'm not sure that God was left out of the class; but certainly Jesus was. I found myself in later years with a deeper knowledge of God, and very little of Jesus and what he did and accomplished. That's because the gospels were ignored, and instead, the focus was only really on the epistles. Only passingly touched the OT.
God-conscious, but not Jesus-conscious. Still working on that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
TLDR
"pro-PFAL people" ................?
TWI prefers acronyms so "PPP" might fit.
Or P^3,
P-Cubed
Block heads.
Got it.
Please continue.
Edited by Bolshevikedited for actual error
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Excellent point, Cman !
And that got me thinking...what if ignoring the way God works was also left out of the class. I believe it was all too often that God worked in the lives of people despite what TWI-leadership said or did.
wierwille taught us to ignore feelings - “feelings come and go” . Maybe that muddied the whole process of how a person grows in the faith. I tend to think Christianity is a mysterious blend of intuition and logic. The “intuition” part allows room for God to work in my life – how he does that is way beyond me and probably different for others since we are all unique individual beings – so I’m not going to attempt to confine him in some little theological box...and furthermore to be clear – overall I don’t think PFAL pitted intuition against logic – but rather intuition versus wierwille’s logical fallacies and skewed theology.
Christianity is about God and people. The two great commandments are love God and neighbor. We are social beings. Reflecting on when I was in - it seems to me now that the subculture of the The Way International was counterproductive to how God works with people and situations and even how people work with each other...even if you want to disregard the spiritual possibilities of intuition, I believe hobbling our interpersonal skills can do a lot more harm than good...for instance, wierwille teaching people to ignore or suppress intuition laid the groundwork for spiritual, emotional and sexual abuse by him and others.
I Googled “intuition versus analytical thinking” and found some interesting articles. The following excerpt got me thinking that instead of pitting intuition against logic we should acknowledge we need both and determine what the situation calls for:
"...One of the themes that came out in the discussion was the need to find a balance between intuitive and analytical thinking. (This is a position I argued in my blog post “Are You an Intuitive or Analytical Thinker?" ) Our intuitions have been finely honed over evolutionary history for making quick decisions in the social realm. Within seconds, we know whether we like some or not, whether we trust them or not. We’re also remarkably good at predicting each other’s behavior in the moment.
Beyond the social realm, however, our intuitions often lead us astray—and often in predictable ways. And that’s where analytical thinking becomes important. Even if our rapid-response intuitive system is wrong, our slower, more effortful analytical system can bring us to the best decision.
And so we come to the question from the audience: “If you could only have one mode of thinking in your life—intuitive or analytical—which would you choose?”
I, the analytical scientist, quickly responded: “Of course you need both.” "
from : Psychology Today - which is more important intuitive or analytical thinking
As the above excerpt mentioned outside of social settings, analytical thinking is important. And I believe it does have its place in Christianity – I think of things like personal Bible study, preaching, teaching, systematic theology...PFAL and wierwille come up short in that category too. That’s why I said earlier PFAL pitted intuition against wierwille’s logical fallacies and skewed theology. Students in the PFAL class were browbeaten into agreeing with the teacher. Evidently wierwille thought very little of critical and creative thinking skills in saying “you can’t go beyond what you're taught”.
PFAL was a formula – a tried and “true”
method for TWI’s feeble never-ending "membership drives". As a general rule of thumb, if after a certain length of time (it could be weeks or months until another PFAL class would start) Twig fellowship newcomers didn’t show any real interest in taking the class, then gung-ho Way-believers lost interest in them.
The thought of wierwille being God’s spokesman and PFAL being a modern day epistle was the basis for the way corps program. Anyone who has ever been through the program and tells you otherwise is probably still in TWI or the TWI mindset is still in them...
...and advocating a return to PFAL "because we missed so much and didn't get it right the first time" is absurdity to the Nth degree!
...I recall the fervent adulation I used to have for wierwille when I was involved with TWI - and at such reflective sobering moments like that it now makes me wonder at what point did I cross the line. the definition of idolatry is extreme admiration, love or reverence for something or someone.
Edited by T-Boneformatting & typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
What if?
For now we see as through a glass darkly...
There we have, in a nutshell, the entirety of Wierwille's get rich quick scheme... people have extremely limited ability to discern even factual information, let alone truth about God and spirituality. Yet, it is a very deep and very human longing, to know God.
Couple that with the enduring insight in this recent work of research: Useful Delusions: The Power & Paradox of the Self-Deceiving Brain.
Put simply, Mike believes in his god, VP, because that's what works for him. WE, OTOH, long ago jettisoned VP as our savior because it no longer worked for us, overridden by massive quantities of cognitive dissonance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExWayBeliever
Mr.Mike
I concede you that there's some people out there uploading PFAL content and so...
However, when you say "Second Wave" it sounds like "The Second Industrial Revolution" or something like that.
I guess you know the figure of speech "Hyperbole".
Greetings.
Love and Mercy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
New Topic:
Did something happen to the GreaseSpot archives? I know that there were several software changes complicating such an archive.
I am in touch with several civilized TWI people who are saying TWI has calmed down and "won't cha come on back home" attitudes are abounding there now.
I say to them, GREAT, please give me the name of the TWI official who is in charge of reparations, so I can send him a copy of the GreaseSpot Archive.
Here is another thing I said to one such friendly TWI person about this:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Your wishful wanting (i.e. nostalgia) appears to willfully ignore the role of human nature in the history twi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Don't be shy said the spider to the fly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think this is a misdiagnosis of the problem - an incorrect conclusion regarding the cause of an unwelcome, difficult and harmful situation. I believe it is based on a faulty assumption that TWI ONCE had the greatest (superior to all others in the world) teacher and teachings.
Setting aside the malfeasance of wierwille’s unabashed plagiarism for a moment - there is much more at issue than just him stealing other people’s work. It’s actually a little more complex than that. There are several hidden false assumptions...there are at least 5 (but not necessarily limited to just 5) that I can think of right off the bat:
Faulty assumption #1:
The material that wierwille copied from others was completely correct or valid. This does not refer to any particular passage of the Bible but rather to the ideas, principles, interpretations, doctrines and speculations that other authors would abstract from the Bible. (Bullinger’s teaching that there were 4 crucified with Jesus Christ comes to mind).
Faulty assumption #2:
wierwille was competent...or qualified to understand, analyze, fine tune, correct, clarify or improve the material of others.
Faulty assumption #3:
wierwille had help from God to synthesize and accurize the aggregate formed from the teachings of others.
Faulty assumption #4:
TWI became a HARMFUL cult after deviating from the teachings of wierwille; a cult is a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular person or object; a cult is considered HARMFUL ...DAMAGING...DETRIMENTAL ...ABUSIVE to others when what is venerated is a dishonest, delusional, narcissistic megalomaniac like wierwille.
Faulty assumption #5:
TWI was a genuine Christian ministry...a biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry and that through loss of wierwille’s leadership, negligence , erroneous judgments, bad decisions or whatever gave over control, possession or responsibility of TWI to the devil...to the contrary , there are actually much more plausible options than shifting blame to the devil - like basing a ministry on some lying, thieving, cheating, money grubbing sexual predator who lived like the devil - meaning wierwille with great speed, effort and intensity lived an amoral life.
Edited by T-BoneRevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
twi has hemmoraged almost all its members. They have nothing to offer new people. They are unable to get their current members to produce enormous litters of fast-maturing offspring that they could soak for income (impossible for several reasons, of course.) So, with nothing to offer people who've never heard of twi, they're pretty desperate for "new" (old, returning) members they can soak for more income/ Social Security checks. So, the few people left inside are told to be especially nice to people like you, and see if they can rope you in all over again. twi has "calmed down" in the sense that it is boring and putting people to sleep, and no longer has the luxury of chasing off lukewarm members who still give them money or buy their products. hq was never your home, no matter what you were told.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I'm confident, T-Bone, that you know there's no arguing facts with Mike. There's no proving or disproving your assumptions. People (like Mike and JohnIam) believe, or profess to believe, what Wierwille taught. They're going to believe what they want to believe. Logic and rational, objective proof be dammed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah, Rocky - I’ve realized that a long time ago... as always there’s actually 2 reasons I post. My target audience is other folks whether in or out of TWI who have some doubts, questions, want to sort things out or maybe just looking for validation of some thoughts they’ve had so they check out Grease Spot...and as far as anyone else who still believes wierwille was the greatest - my posts may be a glimmer of hope to escape the nonsense. I never write anyone off or demonize them like wierwille and other TWI leadership would do - mark and avoid...declare someone is wrong seed...possessed...tricked by the devil.
There is always hope.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
To me, everything about "The Mike Wars" is encapsulated in the following:
Mike believes PFAL is God-breathed.
PFAL defines the qualities of the God-breathed Word.
PFAL does not meet the qualities of the God-breathed Word.
PFAL is not God-breathed.
The end.
I truly don't understand why it's still a conversation, except that Mike (like every religious adherent before and after him) simply ignores the evidence to the contrary and insists his position has "stood the test of time" for the simple reason that he refuses to abandon it. The test of time is not relevant. The test of critical analysis is.
Here's what we did NOT address in "The Mike Wars."
PFAL is not God-breathed IF it is correct about the qualities of the God-breathed Word.
The Bible is not God-breathed if PFAL is correct about the qualities of the God-breathed Word.
Now, here's the amusing thing: The Bible never claims, of itself, that it is God-breathed. The Bible actually makes ZERO claims about itself, because the Bible is not an "It." It's a collection of many books, only a very few of which even recognize the mere existence of other books in the collection.
When "Paul" wrote "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," he was in all likelihood not talking about his own letters, and all but certainly not referring to gospels that had yet to be written.
Is PFAL God-breathed.
I can't participate in the discussion anymore. Nothing is God-breathed.
But if you want to engage, you need to be consistent: If PFAL is not God breathed, what's your standard for reaching that conclusion, and does the Bible itself meet that standard? If not, how does anyone deny Mike's position (my original answer still holds).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
This is true. We argued the facts already, and I am done. I'll happily help someone with a hungry heart to learn, who wants to sort thru them all. But I see no value in my trying to get all those ducks in a row again.
Years ago there was great value to me and to a few others (so they tell me) for me to dredge through all those things. There was a lively audience here of widely mixed interests. I gathered much data from them and gave much data back in return. But that audience is now spent.
Every point mentioned in this thread has been addressed numerous times in the past. I pretty much only came back to say hello and shmooze a little. In my mind the debate is over... long over.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
"I'll happily help someone with a hungry heart to learn, who wants to sort thru them all..." IOW, someone who is still gullible and hasn't worked it out to their own satisfaction already.
"Years ago there was great value... for me to dredge through all those things... that audience is now spent." IOW, the window for me to mindf*** those people is long gone.
Shmooze away, Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
So come and join some other threads NOT related to TWI, PFAL, or anything of like nature. Schmooze away in Open about the dancing you've been doing. Chat about a book you read. Tell a few jokes.
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.