Yet another thread that has become all about Mike.
For those who don't know, Mike is on the autistic spectrum. Nowadays, sometimes called "neuro-divergent." (I think there may be some other posters here who are also neuro-divergent.) That means Mike doesn't think like "neuro-typicals" and no amount of presenting alternative facts will dislodge his current views. What you say will only entrench his own views even more. No amount of logic or browbeating will cause him to backtrack on his beliefs.
So stop wasting your time trying!
Being autistic isn't a "bad" thing, or an insult. It's how people were formed in the womb. High-end autistics are said to have Asperger's syndrome, and there are many famous "Aspies." These include Elon Musk, and Bill Gates, for two. Others excel as musicians, architects, artists, etc, with great focus, and an attention to detail that can lead to ground-breaking advances. Where they excel in ability and focus is, unfortunately for neurotypicals, also where they lack in interpersonal skills and empathy.
Translation:
"No matter how much sense Mike can make, you have a "Spectrum Excuse" from me and my good sense to JUST PAY NO ATTENTION to his logic or words."
Twinky you your transparency works against typical shyster lawyer tactics.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, your only honest move is to vote Twinky guilty."
Shyster lawyers in the USA. Lots of them exposed themselves in recent months. Some, however, showed their honesty.
Happily, the lawyers I've known are generally honest and genuinely do their best for their clients.
Please don't be insulting. I have not insulted you, or (so far as I'm aware) anyone else here. It's not my nature.
"Spectrum excuse"? Maybe an explanation (not excuse) for your adamancy in face of much opposing information.
Look, Mike, I like the way you stick to your guns and won't be swayed. In some ways, it's an admirable quality. It's clear that you really stick to the things you are passionate about. I just wish your "guns" were a bit better, and not water pistols.
Translation:
"No matter how much sense Mike can make, you have a "Spectrum Excuse" from me and my good sense to JUST PAY NO ATTENTION to his logic or words."
. . .
Yes but what is super blessed? What is blessed? What is the logic to being blessed?
Translation:
"No matter how much sense Mike can make, you have a "Spectrum Excuse" from me and my good sense to JUST PAY NO ATTENTION to his logic or words."
Mike, Mike, Mike...
Has anyone here at GSC considered your schtick to be "good sense or logic?"
That ship sailed years ago. I don't claim to know or be able to discern what you "are thinking." I only know what you've written on GSC.
IF you were to be "on the spectrum," and IF we understood your words in such context, it would be much easier to accept, or at least understand, your logic.
Further, expressing, or responding with defensiveness doesn't necessarily suggest to your readers any strength resides in your arguments. OTOH, vulnerability DOES communicate strength and promotes connection/acceptance.
So you appreciate Twinky's speculation and guessing!
Why is that not a surprise to me?
When you folks get desperate you change the topic to an attack on me with guesses and speculations. I hope you know this is apparent to all readers, including the ones you (plural) are supposing to "minster" to.
And speaking of those that are supposedly ministered to by all the whistleblowers here, I wonder if you ever thought through what those people do AFTER being so warned about the evils of one institution. Without the accurate Word, they go and get ripped off by some other entity. Duh!
When are you folks going to offer God's Word to people? How many are you undershepherding right now?
Time is a wasting, and you all will be held accountable for all the speculations and guessing you do.
Get a life! Teach one person the Word, if you are still able.
On 1/2/2022 at 12:54 AM, T-Bone said:
Yes !
Recently I was rereading Kristen Skedgell’s memoir Losing the Way: A Memoir of Spiritual Longing, Manipulation, Abuse,and Escape it got me thinking about this thread – TWI trying to revive the glory days – and comments from someone who still talks it up on how great wierwille and the PFAL class were/are. I try to take the person at face value and guess they’ve mastered how to ignore / hide disappointment. Going on what he said elsewhere I know he was never in the way corps. If he is being genuine in his posts - perhaps some folks are just happy thinking wierwille and PFAL are the greatest thing since rightly divided bread. I mean do they still really believe God talked to wierwille and taught him “The Word” so he could teach it to others. That’s the wierwille we all started out knowing about. But for those of us who went into the way corps – we got to see another side of him – the real side of him…this is like a tale of two wierwilles…
In her memoir Kristen relates an incident that happened at the way corps training campus in Rome City. It was during her block assignment in housekeeping. One of her responsibilities included the Coachman Suite – she would be attentive to caring for wierwille’s needs whenever he would visit the campus. Being excited about “the man of God” coming to visit, Kristen wrote a welcome letter and place it on his pillow saying she would “do anything to make his time more blessed here”.
The following night, after the evening teaching wierwille called Kristen to his suite. He has a glass of Drambuie in one hand and a cigarette in the other – he sits very relaxed – he had taken off his suit coat and tie, the top button of his white shirt was undone, and his shoes were kicked off. He asks her to sit on the bed and they exchange some polite small talk. He then asks her if she really meant what she said in the little welcome note. “Of course” she says.
Then wierwille says “Well, there is one thing you can do for me. I’d like you to take off your clothes. I’d like to show you how to really make love to a man. You know what I’m talking about. You’re of age. Don’t you want me to show you how to have intercourse? How to make love to a man of God!”
In the book Kristen says “This is tantamount to a father soliciting sex from his daughter. The betrayal is unthinkable.” Trying to delay or avert wierwille’s advances, Kristen tried asking him how such an act is consistent with The Word. He explains that all things are pure to the pure…it’s a matter of keeping our minds renewed and centered on God…a man of God needs many women to satisfy his overwhelming needs.
There is nothing titillating when Kristen describes wierwille sexually molesting her. It’s like reading a police report of a daughter being raped by her own father. It is horrifying to read and I have no words to express my uncomfortable feelings over it…a part of me aches in sympathy for Kristen and then there’s utter revulsion over wierwille’s betrayal…afterwards he says to her “It’s the lockbox, honey. You have to keep this in the lockbox of your soul. Many of God’s people wouldn’t understand what we’ve just done.”
Kristen’s story is not unique…how many hundreds – if not thousands of women suffered from this sexual predator.
To show my appreciation for someone’s nostalgia posts of wierwille / PFAL I like to use them as a springboard for unveiling stuff about the real wierwille – unabashed plagiarist, megalomaniac, malignant narcissist, mean-spirited, hypocritical, delusional, money-grubbing, pontificating phony, sexual predator.
Disappointment means you’ve exercised enough critical thinking to realize a product, service or person did not live up to what was expected. But I think betrayal is worse. Betrayal means you’ve invested so much of yourself into the relationship – you totally trusted the other person – someone you really admired - had great respect for their accomplishments and their status in the ministry – someone you confided in – someone you looked to for providing biblical counsel and being an example of how to live the Christian lifestyle - – and you never expected to be cheated by them…so callously exploited. Betrayal is the sense of being deeply hurt by the intentional actions of a person you really trusted…yup let’s get back to those glory - I mean gory days !
For all you TWI-glory-days-revivalists-suckers-gluttons-for-punishment - beware !
wierwille may be dead but he is not gone. His ghost still haunts the whited sepulcher known as The Way International…late at night you can hear him shuffling about with Drambuie in one hand and a cigarette in the other, cackling as he spouts one-liners from PFAL “…technically all the women in the kingdom belong to the king…millions now smoking…the law of believing works for saint and sinner alike…ask the pendant – yes, no, yes, no…”
Mike said on Monday at 02:39 PM :
“When you folks get desperate you change the topic to an attack on me with guesses and speculations. I hope you know this is apparent to all readers, including the ones you (plural) are supposing to "minster" to.
And speaking of those that are supposedly ministered to by all the whistleblowers here, I wonder if you ever thought through what those people do AFTER being so warned about the evils of one institution.Without the accurate Word, they go and get ripped off by some other entity.Duh!
When are you folks going to offer God's Word to people?How many are you undershepherding right now?
Time is a wasting, and you all will be held accountable for all the speculations and guessing you do.
Get a life!Teach one person the Word, if you are still able.”
Did you mean I should offer God’s Word– teach one person the Word – under-shepherd someone - - exactly the waywierwille did?
In case you missed it or chose to ignore it, I’ll re-post part of what I said earlier on this thread on Sunday January 2nd 2022 at 12:54 AM:
“…Recently I was rereading Kristen Skedgell’s memoir Losing the Way: A Memoir of Spiritual Longing, Manipulation, Abuse, and Escape it got me thinking about this thread – TWI trying to revive the glory days – and comments from someone who still talks it up on how great wierwille and the PFAL class were/are. I try to take the person at face value and guess they’ve mastered how to ignore / hide disappointment. Going on what he said elsewhere I know he was never in the way corps. If he is being genuine in his posts - perhaps some folks are just happy thinking wierwille and PFAL are the greatest thing since rightly divided bread. I mean do they still really believe God talked to wierwille and taught him “The Word” so he could teach it to others. That’s the wierwille we all started out knowing about. But for those of us who went into the way corps – we got to see another side of him – the real side of him…this is like a tale of two wierwilles…
In her memoir Kristen relates an incident that happened at the way corps training campus in Rome City. It was during her block assignment in housekeeping. One of her responsibilities included the Coachman Suite – she would be attentive to caring for wierwille’s needs whenever he would visit the campus. Being excited about “the man of God” coming to visit, Kristen wrote a welcome letter and placed it on his pillow saying she would “do anything to make his time more blessed here”.
The following night, after the evening teaching wierwille called Kristen to his suite. He has a glass of Drambuie in one hand and a cigarette in the other – he sits very relaxed – he had taken off his suit coat and tie, the top button of his white shirt was undone, and his shoes were kicked off. He asks her to sit on the bed and they exchange some polite small talk. He then asks her if she really meant what she said in the little welcome note. “Of course” she says.
Then wierwille says “Well, there is one thing you can do for me. I’d like you to take off your clothes. I’d like to show you how to really make love to a man. You know what I’m talking about. You’re of age. Don’t you want me to show you how to have intercourse? How to make love to a man of God!”
In the book Kristen says “This is tantamount to a father soliciting sex from his daughter. The betrayal is unthinkable.” Trying to delay or avert wierwille’s advances, Kristen tried asking him how such an act is consistent with The Word. He explains that all things are pure to the pure…it’s a matter of keeping our minds renewed and centered on God…a man of God needs many women to satisfy his overwhelming needs.
There is nothing titillating when Kristen describes wierwille sexually molesting her. It’s like reading a police report of a daughter being raped by her own father. It is horrifying to read and I have no words to express my uncomfortable feelings over it…a part of me aches in sympathy for Kristen and then there’s utter revulsion over wierwille’s betrayal…afterwards he says to her “It’s the lockbox, honey. You have to keep this in the lockbox of your soul. Many of God’s people wouldn’t understand what we’ve just done.”
= = ====
So, Mike, should I offer God’s Word– teach one person the Word– under-shepherd someone - - exactly the way wierwille did with Kristen – and who knows how many other women?
When you said “get a life” did you mean pursue a predatory life - just like wierwille did?
Shyster lawyers in the USA. Lots of them exposed themselves in recent months. Some, however, showed their honesty.
Happily, the lawyers I've known are generally honest and genuinely do their best for their clients.
Please don't be insulting. I have not insulted you, or (so far as I'm aware) anyone else here. It's not my nature.
"Spectrum excuse"? Maybe an explanation (not excuse) for your adamancy in face of much opposing information.
Look, Mike, I like the way you stick to your guns and won't be swayed. In some ways, it's an admirable quality. It's clear that you really stick to the things you are passionate about. I just wish your "guns" were a bit better, and not water pistols.
Twinky,
Maybe it was a typo in my punchline, but you missed the point I was making. I was saying you were so excessively transparent in your tactics, that you failed at achieving a high level of shyster-ness.
It is so obvious to me (and possible some lurkers observing) what your tactics are. That’ a plural “you” there; I mean nearly everyone here on this. You are so engaged with trying to undo what I say, that you expose your lack of understanding of what I am saying.
*/*/*/*/*
I'm glad you like my stick-to-it-nesss. I work on it, and am even writing a book (slowly) on the VALID and GOOD techniques for not allowing debate to sway a carefully formed opinion or stance.
Reason and debate are overrated.
Critical thinking skills are overrated.
Can you tell me anything that you have ever seen really proved to be true?
Most so-called proofs are really just strong persuasion, often merely repeated associations or emotion. Long ago, in science, I noticed that the more sure a proof is, the more trivial and far removed from human life it is. I think it works that way in other areas, like courtrooms. I consider all math proofs to be this kind of trivial. I like them, but don’t expect math kind of surety to ever be anywhere else in life, outside the Word and what is proved by it.
Very rarely is something proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. If it is, it is always trivial.
I contend that a debate on a significant life topic can never end with a winner.
It may LOOK like it ended at times. An apparent winner may be proclaimed by all, even the “loser,” but all could still be wrong.
Who is to say the apparent loser did not simply forget an important point? Or a needed fact was just unknown. Later, after everyone goes home, the point may be remembered. THEN who is the winner??? And who will tell the dispersed audience?
Lots of times, especially here, when I or some other proPFAL person presents a point, there is a pile-on to overwhelm with text. Exhaustion is a great way to get your opponent to forget his line, or necessary points. OR, it can just cause the apparent loser to give up, and think he is wrong. But that would be sad, wouldn’t it?
Emotion is another great way to falsely win a debate.
I saw a shyster lawyer attempt to do this in a big murder case in Georgia, USA just 2 months ago. I think it was Georgia. It was so egregious that, lawyers everywhere should have disbarred her, or at least proclaimed her way over the line. But they won’t. Luckily, this lawyer failed. I’m surprised no one has talked about her gross immorality, and obfuscation of truth.
Emotion can influence the audience of a debate as well as the apparent loser-to-be. Truth can get really buried in a debate.
There are lots of reasons I dodge debate here, at times. I admit it. That really bothers many. I care not. I care to get the Word out.
I do not care about looking like I am winning a debate, especially with life’s losers. If, after decades, you (rhetorical) are not real keen on learning how to operate all 9 manifestations to bless people, and you KNOW about them, then in my book you are a loser. That should pre-occupy all of our attention, doing all the things Jesus did and greater.
Just think of how many TWI souls you can save if you had all 9 all the time going!
*/*/*/*
Why should I waste my time on detailed, exhaustive debate with people who are unthankful for being taught that God is good? That is the most wonderful early impression I got from PFAL from the start, and it continues today.
When people give more allegiance to stupid copyright customs that to learning to walk with God, then I have no interest in their infantile outcries. I put my life on the line, here, in 1988 with openly bootlegging the PFAL videos. I called my Limb leader and then Howard Allen’s office and told them what I was doing and why.
Copyright, shmoppiright! You folks’d make me LoL Out Loud, if it weren’t so tragic how much light you are willing to reject, over really stupid positions of who owns what in a spiritual family. Your copyright objections will burn to smithereens in the fire of 1 Corinthians Chapter 3.
*/*/*
PFAL taught me how to read the other ancient revelations that God has given to us sinners, the Bible. This excites me; I bore easily hearing sensational news here of one sinner being worse than another.
Those sinners who think that their own breaking of the greatest commandment is not as egregious as another sinner’s breaking of the greatest commandment are blind. Plain and simple.
This was one of the first things that destroyed my Catholic mindset in PFAL: we all equally are sinners, breakers of the greatest commandment. Inventories of lesser sins is pure folly. You folks are WAY too sin conscious here.
*/*/*/*/*
So, Twinky, I’m off my rhetorical addressing, and back talking to you now.
How do you, as a professional wordsmith, argue for the goodness of God to a poor unbeliever who is all beat up, and caught up in the negatives of the world?
When first witnessing what I was learning in PFAL back in the early 1970s (Receive,Retain,Release), I quickly noticed that there is one BIG question on the street that nags at people. For some it is a theoretical nag; others can be totally overwhelmed by directly experiencing it.
It’s the question: WHY is the world so evil, when God is supposed to be so good? Why did a foreknowing God allow Lucifer and Adam to mess it all up?
Have you ever noticed how that bugs people to no end? How do you answer it? I mean, convincingly. I heard the old “free will” argument plenty of times, but it did not satisfy me, nor the poor souls I’d witness to. No consolation there at all for them.
If you try minister to an intellectual on this topic, you may see tactics thrown at you like I see thrown at me here. Exhaustion, emotion triggers, etc. Anything but dealing with the most important issues is what that kind of debate generally devolves to.
Have you ever been able to convince someone that God is good, in spite of the bad?
I’d love to hear your arguments for the goodness of God, and then I’ll tell you the answer I eventually got…. That is IF you can convince me that you want to meekly learn, even from a ringer like me.
But, if you just want another round of debate (like others here so obviously do) then (yawn) I’ll try my best to fit you into my calendar….. someday…. when I’m not busy. Yeah, that’s the ticket! When I’m not busy.
Have you ever taken a step back and looked at the absurdity of some of the nonsense you post here?
I mean, you're not a sage or a prophet or someone who has stumbled upon the ultimate source of wisdom for all ages.
PFAL is just another one of thousands of bible classes that have come and gone. Yes, it presents some controversial, unorthodox concepts that go against the flow of mainstream Christianity. Beyond that? Well, it's just another bible class and not a particularly good one at that.
Perhaps if you didn't devalue critical thinking so much you might be able to recognize that. Then again, maybe you have too much invested in your quest to ever consider that.
Arendt's book [Eichmann in Jerusalem] introduced the expression and concept of thebanality of evil.[7]Herthesisis that Eichmann was actually not afanaticor asociopath, but instead an extremely average and mundane person who relied onclichéddefenses rather than thinking for himself, was motivated by professional promotion rather thanideology, and believed in success which he considered the chief standard of "good society".[8]Banality, in this sense, does not mean that Eichmann's actions were in any way ordinary, or even that there is a potential Eichmann in all of us, but that his actions were motivated by a sort of complacency which was wholly unexceptional.[9]Many mid-20th century pundits were favorable to the concept.[10][11]
Edited by waysider Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#Banality_of_evil
Having a rigid mindset is far worse than being wrong.
Hmmmm, that's a yes and no for me. I get that, sort of, in a way.
It would be true in the process of learning, but not in knowing. There are things I want to be right about and entertaining alternatives won't serve my need. Once I know something and what I know is right as best I can see, that's good enough for me.
In religion it gets kicked around because there's an assumption that no one knows "for sure" and even since we have so many people that believe differently but swear they know for sure it all goes to prove that no one knows for sure, so there's a perceived value to staying open minded, and willing to change - "after all", etc.
Even within one's own beliefs there can be a means by which their source material can correct them when they get off target.
But the process of learning has an end goal which is to know something. I might say I'll never know it all or will always be learning and willing to consider alternatives, but I would never do that without serious consideration, as far as the basic things "I know".
I find in my experience, those who feel that way, even if they differ, allow for that rigidity - BECAUSE they themselves know what they know and learn to honor that state of being in others, as much as they allow it for themselves.
There's only conflict when it comes to societal concerns, where it crosses over into others lives. Otherwise, outside of the impetus to help others if I can, why would I care what someone else "believes" if it has no affect on me or if the affect is in any way a good one, for me....? I don't want to correct others "on principle", just for the fun of it. Put it this way - My God tells me to help others in active, individual ways and part of that is to tell them about Jesus Christ. I want others to share what I have and have the future I believe I have, because I believe it's a good one that allows them to find their own space and shape their own lives with the Creator, like I have, and maybe even in ways they can in turn share with me, to my own benefit...so hey! it's a win win. Or not, if someone doesn't I have to accept that.
In America today we have trouble living that way, I know it can be a challenge for me at times and others too it seems, but I do think the earliest conception of our governance was trying to avoid a social system that won't allow you to rise up or out of your "place", but to create a new opportunity to carve out a space for individual freedoms. Course that didn't apply to slaves but - yeah, it was a start. I am thankful to God for the lives of those upon whom this great vision of a country was built yet who were not allowed to participate in it's promise, who died in a foreign land and under a different sky than they'd been born to - I can't imagine what despair must have filled their hearts in the acceptance they lived in that allowed them to survive another day - for what? Talk about having hope.
Here I am today, I can only be the me I am and do what I can. And there are some things I am very rigid about, and that I don't believe I'm wrong about and that I won't change my mind about, barring a big smack on the head I can't miss. If I stand before a God someday who tells me I was wrong, what will I have to say other than hey, I thought that's what You meant, I'm glad to change my mind if I can still get on the boat going out. If that somehow condemns me for eternity, so be it. I can't help but think there will be a level of satisfaction just knowing - finally, for sure - the truth. In the meantime, I'm pretty tenacious about my beliefs.
Maybe it was a typo in my punchline, but you missed the point I was making. I was saying you were so excessively transparent in your tactics, that you failed at achieving a high level of shyster-ness.
It is so obvious to me (and possible some lurkers observing) what your tactics are. That’ a plural “you” there; I mean nearly everyone here on this. You are so engaged with trying to undo what I say, that you expose your lack of understanding of what I am saying.
*/*/*/*/*
I'm glad you like my stick-to-it-nesss. I work on it, and am even writing a book (slowly) on the VALID and GOOD techniques for not allowing debate to sway a carefully formed opinion or stance.
Reason and debate are overrated.
Critical thinking skills are overrated.
Can you tell me anything that you have ever seen really proved to be true?
Most so-called proofs are really just strong persuasion, often merely repeated associations or emotion. Long ago, in science, I noticed that the more sure a proof is, the more trivial and far removed from human life it is. I think it works that way in other areas, like courtrooms. I consider all math proofs to be this kind of trivial. I like them, but don’t expect math kind of surety to ever be anywhere else in life, outside the Word and what is proved by it.
Very rarely is something proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. If it is, it is always trivial.
I contend that a debate on a significant life topic can never end with a winner.
It may LOOK like it ended at times. An apparent winner may be proclaimed by all, even the “loser,” but all could still be wrong.
Who is to say the apparent loser did not simply forget an important point? Or a needed fact was just unknown. Later, after everyone goes home, the point may be remembered. THEN who is the winner??? And who will tell the dispersed audience?
Lots of times, especially here, when I or some other proPFAL person presents a point, there is a pile-on to overwhelm with text. Exhaustion is a great way to get your opponent to forget his line, or necessary points. OR, it can just cause the apparent loser to give up, and think he is wrong. But that would be sad, wouldn’t it?
Emotion is another great way to falsely win a debate.
I saw a shyster lawyer attempt to do this in a big murder case in Georgia, USA just 2 months ago. I think it was Georgia. It was so egregious that, lawyers everywhere should have disbarred her, or at least proclaimed her way over the line. But they won’t. Luckily, this lawyer failed. I’m surprised no one has talked about her gross immorality, and obfuscation of truth.
Emotion can influence the audience of a debate as well as the apparent loser-to-be. Truth can get really buried in a debate.
There are lots of reasons I dodge debate here, at times. I admit it. That really bothers many. I care not. I care to get the Word out.
I do not care about looking like I am winning a debate, especially with life’s losers. If, after decades, you (rhetorical) are not real keen on learning how to operate all 9 manifestations to bless people, and you KNOW about them, then in my book you are a loser. That should pre-occupy all of our attention, doing all the things Jesus did and greater.
Just think of how many TWI souls you can save if you had all 9 all the time going!
*/*/*/*
Why should I waste my time on detailed, exhaustive debate with people who are unthankful for being taught that God is good? That is the most wonderful early impression I got from PFAL from the start, and it continues today.
When people give more allegiance to stupid copyright customs that to learning to walk with God, then I have no interest in their infantile outcries. I put my life on the line, here, in 1988 with openly bootlegging the PFAL videos. I called my Limb leader and then Howard Allen’s office and told them what I was doing and why.
Copyright, shmoppiright! You folks’d make me LoL Out Loud, if it weren’t so tragic how much light you are willing to reject, over really stupid positions of who owns what in a spiritual family. Your copyright objections will burn to smithereens in the fire of 1 Corinthians Chapter 3.
*/*/*
PFAL taught me how to read the other ancient revelations that God has given to us sinners, the Bible. This excites me; I bore easily hearing sensational news here of one sinner being worse than another.
Those sinners who think that their own breaking of the greatest commandment is not as egregious as another sinner’s breaking of the greatest commandment are blind. Plain and simple.
This was one of the first things that destroyed my Catholic mindset in PFAL: we all equally are sinners, breakers of the greatest commandment. Inventories of lesser sins is pure folly. You folks are WAY too sin conscious here.
*/*/*/*/*
So, Twinky, I’m off my rhetorical addressing, and back talking to you now.
How do you, as a professional wordsmith, argue for the goodness of God to a poor unbeliever who is all beat up, and caught up in the negatives of the world?
When first witnessing what I was learning in PFAL back in the early 1970s (Receive,Retain,Release), I quickly noticed that there is one BIG question on the street that nags at people. For some it is a theoretical nag; others can be totally overwhelmed by directly experiencing it.
It’s the question: WHY is the world so evil, when God is supposed to be so good? Why did a foreknowing God allow Lucifer and Adam to mess it all up?
Have you ever noticed how that bugs people to no end? How do you answer it? I mean, convincingly. I heard the old “free will” argument plenty of times, but it did not satisfy me, nor the poor souls I’d witness to. No consolation there at all for them.
If you try minister to an intellectual on this topic, you may see tactics thrown at you like I see thrown at me here. Exhaustion, emotion triggers, etc. Anything but dealing with the most important issues is what that kind of debate generally devolves to.
Have you ever been able to convince someone that God is good, in spite of the bad?
I’d love to hear your arguments for the goodness of God, and then I’ll tell you the answer I eventually got…. That is IF you can convince me that you want to meekly learn, even from a ringer like me.
But, if you just want another round of debate (like others here so obviously do) then (yawn) I’ll try my best to fit you into my calendar….. someday…. when I’m not busy. Yeah, that’s the ticket! When I’m not busy.
That was an excellent source of inspiration for promos, reviews, and various and sundry redundancy of wierwille’s bull$hit:
Here’s a review from one PFAL-fan who was disappointed in “the teacher” not being smarmy enough:
“you were so excessively transparent in your tactics, that you failed at achieving a high level of shyster-ness.”
= = = = ==
In a related article review from Shyster Monthly, a promo to whet the appetite of every scammer in the Tri-altered-state-area, page 6:
“I'm glad you like my stick-to-it-nesss. I work on it, and am even writing a book (slowly) on the VALID and GOOD techniques for not allowing debate to sway a carefully formed opinion or stance.”
= = = = = =
On the front inside of the dust jacket used to “protect” the orange PFAL book:
“Reason and debate are overrated. Critical thinking skills are overrated. Can you tell me anything that you have ever seen really proved to be true? Most so-called proofs are really just strong persuasion, often merely repeated associations or emotion. Long ago, in science, I noticed that the more sure a proof is, the more trivial and far removed from human life it is. I think it works that way in other areas, like courtrooms. I consider all math proofs to be this kind of trivial. I like them, but don’t expect math kind of surety to ever be anywhere else in life, outside the Word and what is proved by it.
Very rarely is something proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. If it is, it is always trivial. I contend that a debate on a significant life topic can never end with a winner. It may LOOK like it ended at times. An apparent winner may be proclaimed by all, even the “loser,” but all could still be wrong. Who is to say the apparent loser did not simply forget an important point? Or a needed fact was just unknown. Later, after everyone goes home, the point may be remembered. THEN who is the winner??? And who will tell the dispersed audience?
If that’s not enough to make you PAY ridiculous amounts of any money for bull$hit – I don’t know what is!” (This sentence was not in the original "text")
= = = = =
Overhead in the admissions office of The Way Corps Training Program, the benefits of sleep -deprivation:
“Lots of times, especially here, when I or some other proPFAL person presents a point, there is a pile-on to overwhelm with text. Exhaustion is a great way to get your opponent to forget his line, or necessary points. OR, it can just cause the apparent loser to give up, and think he is wrong. But that would be sad, wouldn’t it?”
= == = =
Overheard in the office of the defense attorneys for Larry Nassar:
“Emotion is another great way to falsely win a debate. I saw a shyster lawyer attempt to do this in a big murder case in Georgia, USA just 2 months ago. I think it was Georgia. It was so egregious that, lawyers everywhere should have disbarred her, or at least proclaimed her way over the line. But they won’t. Luckily, this lawyer failed. I’m surprised no one has talked about her gross immorality, and obfuscation of truth. Emotion can influence the audience of a debate as well as the apparent loser-to-be. Truth can get really buried in a debate. There are lots of reasons I dodge debate here, at times. I admit it. That really bothers many. I care not. I care to get the Word out.”
= = = ==
Letter to the editor of TWI-Offshoots R Us magazine:
“I do not care about looking like I am winning a debate, especially with life’s losers. If, after decades, you (rhetorical) are not real keen on learning how to operate all 9 manifestations to bless people, and you KNOW about them, then in my book you are a loser. That should pre-occupy all of our attention, doing all the things Jesus did and greater. Just think of how many TWI souls you can save if you had all 9 all the time going! Why should I waste my time on detailed, exhaustive debate with people who are unthankful for being taught that God is good? That is the most wonderful early impression I got from PFAL from the start, and it continues today.”
= = = = =
Portion of a leaked internal memo to the editing staff at The American Christian Press suggesting a portion of the book “The Way Living in Love” by Elena S. Whiteside, COPYRIGHT 1972, should be redacted – proposed redaction in bold:
…we are especially concerned of exposure to legal jeopardy over Mister Wierwille’s comments that could be interpreted as willful disregard for the laws against plagiarism. The problem paragraphs in the manuscript that Mister Wierwille submitted to us are on page 209 and reads as follows (again note our legal advisors have indicated the portion that should be redacted in bold):
“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit – that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn’t, I dropped.
When people give more allegiance to stupid copyright customs that to learning to walk with God, then I have no interest in their infantile outcries. I put my life on the line…in the PFAL video. I called Howard Allen’s office and told…what I was doing and why.
Copyright, shmoppiright! You folks’d make me LoL Out Loud, if it weren’t so tragic how much light you are willing to reject, over really stupid positions of who owns what in a spiritual family. Your copyright objections will burn to smithereens in the fire of 1 Corinthians Chapter 3.”
Once again, our legal advisors are of the strong opinion that an unattributed copy of someone else's intellectual property may result in the perpetrator being forced to repay profits earned on the work to the original owner as well as costly court battles to clear the perpetrator’s name.
Edited by T-Bone edited by a plagiarizing comedy writer wannabe
You wrote:
"Have you ever taken a step back and looked at the absurdity of some of the nonsense you post here?"
Do you mean to say that some of the nonsense I post here is not absurd?
*/*/*/*/*
You wrote:
"I mean, you're not a sage or a prophet or someone who has stumbled upon the ultimate source of wisdom for all ages."
You see, THIS is your problem (and many others here, too): You think that a Christian has to be someone real special or something if they want to do significant work with and for God. If that were the case we'd all be sunk.
I am SO glad that in the OT God would take any weirdo, misfit sinner who could believe to get jobs done. You got an elitism spirit suppressing your expectations.
Do you think I should take that sentence seriously? Let's see, should I believe you or the Word on this? I like what Peter said about it.
1 Peter 4:11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Let' see, I think I'm going to take Peter's perspective on this and not yours.
You wrote:
"PFAL is just another one of thousands of bible classes that have come and gone. Yes, it presents some controversial, unorthodox concepts that go against the flow of mainstream Christianity. Beyond that? Well, it's just another bible class and not a particularly good one at that."
Oh really !? Can you name a class that nearly always ended with every new student able to SIT? I saw MANY such classes. I have noticed that all the splinter groups have failed to do what PFAL did. We had about 1,000 new people learning SIT every month.
Please tell me about these so-called equal classes someone may have befuddled you with. I seriously doubt if many teach that the dead are dead, that ALL can SIT and do all nine if the loving heart to serve is there. The Loving Father, does that come out in the other classes out there.
One of the things that helped me was VPW's boldness. He got the job done. I don't see that happening elsewhere; not like the Glory Years.
*/*/*/*/*
You wrote:
"Perhaps if you didn't devalue critical thinking so much you might be able to recognize that. Then again, maybe you have too much invested in your quest to ever consider that."
Who ever said that I devalue it MUCH? Not me!
I only joked with you on your first sentence above. Please re-read what I said about critical thinking skills to Twinky a little earlier, and then tell me who was absurd: what I said, or your exaggerated distortion of what I said.
If that is the way you paid attention to PFAL then that is a likely reason for you not getting the results: you read into the text what the author does not intend.
I love critical thinking skills. I just don't make an idol of them. I don't depend on reason to be perfect. Do you?
Just to expand your horizons, as well as other over-critical thinkers here, what do you think the opposite skill is to critical thinking? How does one balance their skill set if critical thinking is lauded to the stars?
Now that is an easy question to flip off. You can say "stupidity is the opposite." Would you? But that would not be a skill.
I know that there is a good, wholesome, useful, profitable opposite to using critical thinking skills, but I bet you do not. Think about it a little.
When a situation calls for critical thinking, then I am all for them. Most people think there is no time when they are not useful.
Do you think very young children use critical thinking skills as they emerge from infancy. I mean a 1 or 2 year old.
I re-state my case, since you got it so wrong.
People over rely on critical thinking skills. In our culture, lately, critical thinking skills are exalted above the logic of the Word, as if they will ever find the truth on their own.
Part of the temptation of Eve was that she would have super thinking if she ate the wrong fruit. Smart people are often taken down by the adversary because they already have fallen into the idolatry of worshiping their own brains.
I suggest that all should seek something in addition to critical thinking skills, though they are very useful in more trivial, mundane matters, than fellow-shipping with God and His Word.
*/*/*/*
Just one more advanced thought: have you ever used critical thinking skills to evaluate critical thinking skills ?
That is exactly what I was dragging you through above. I am critically thinking about critical thinking skills. BLASPHEMY in academic circles, I know. Worse than plagiarism.
Would you forbid me to use critical thinking skills to expose the limitations of critical thinking, or is that coming to close to an idol for comfort.
Hannah Arendt also has a term she called "thoughtlessness". When you're not so busy. (Mike)
I feel Mike isn't really talking to anyone outside himself. That's not a slam on him. Just the way the dialogue feels, as an observation. . . Much they way Twig Fellowship felt.
Hmmmm, that's a yes and no for me. I get that, sort of, in a way.
It would be true in the process of learning, but not in knowing. There are things I want to be right about and entertaining alternatives won't serve my need. Once I know something and what I know is right as best I can see, that's good enough for me.
In religion it gets kicked around because there's an assumption that no one knows "for sure" and even since we have so many people that believe differently but swear they know for sure it all goes to prove that no one knows for sure, so there's a perceived value to staying open minded, and willing to change - "after all", etc.
Even within one's own beliefs there can be a means by which their source material can correct them when they get off target.
But the process of learning has an end goal which is to know something. I might say I'll never know it all or will always be learning and willing to consider alternatives, but I would never do that without serious consideration, as far as the basic things "I know".
I find in my experience, those who feel that way, even if they differ, allow for that rigidity - BECAUSE they themselves know what they know and learn to honor that state of being in others, as much as they allow it for themselves.
There's only conflict when it comes to societal concerns, where it crosses over into others lives. Otherwise, outside of the impetus to help others if I can, why would I care what someone else "believes" if it has no affect on me or if the affect is in any way a good one, for me....? I don't want to correct others "on principle", just for the fun of it. Put it this way - My God tells me to help others in active, individual ways and part of that is to tell them about Jesus Christ. I want others to share what I have and have the future I believe I have, because I believe it's a good one that allows them to find their own space and shape their own lives with the Creator, like I have, and maybe even in ways they can in turn share with me, to my own benefit...so hey! it's a win win. Or not, if someone doesn't I have to accept that.
In America today we have trouble living that way, I know it can be a challenge for me at times and others too it seems, but I do think the earliest conception of our governance was trying to avoid a social system that won't allow you to rise up or out of your "place", but to create a new opportunity to carve out a space for individual freedoms. Course that didn't apply to slaves but - yeah, it was a start. I am thankful to God for the lives of those upon whom this great vision of a country was built yet who were not allowed to participate in it's promise, who died in a foreign land and under a different sky than they'd been born to - I can't imagine what despair must have filled their hearts in the acceptance they lived in that allowed them to survive another day - for what? Talk about having hope.
Here I am today, I can only be the me I am and do what I can. And there are some things I am very rigid about, and that I don't believe I'm wrong about and that I won't change my mind about, barring a big smack on the head I can't miss. If I stand before a God someday who tells me I was wrong, what will I have to say other than hey, I thought that's what You meant, I'm glad to change my mind if I can still get on the boat going out. If that somehow condemns me for eternity, so be it. I can't help but think there will be a level of satisfaction just knowing - finally, for sure - the truth. In the meantime, I'm pretty tenacious about my beliefs.
If not sooner, see you there!
“that's a yes and no for me. I get that, sort of, in a way” I believe your tentative answer here as well as some of the rest of your post seems to support my point.
I said “Having a rigid mindset is far worse than being wrong” because any system – or system of thought - that is unrepairable or unresponsive or inflexible regarding a fault condition, malfunction, sensory input warning, faulty design, system error, faulty programming, faulty data, sabotage, etc., then it would be IMPOSSIBLE to correct the problem.
Now depending on the system or system of thought - that could be mission-critical if the failure or disruption in the normal operation may result in a total failure of the mission.
Problem 1:
In the 1995 docudrama film Apollo 13 dramatizes the aborted 1970 Apollo 13 lunar mission, America's fifth crewed MISSION TO THE MOON, which was INTENDED to be the third to land. But an on-board explosion deprives their spacecraft of much of its oxygen supply and electrical power, which forces NASA's flight controllers to abort the Moon landing and REDFINES THE MISSION into one of seeking scientific and mechanical solutions to get the three astronauts home safely. I loved this movie! Oddly enough even though I knew how it would end – it was still a nail-biter of a thriller to get caught up in how they were going to fix the problem.
Now what if there was no flexibility in the mission? What if NASA said “sorry, guys but your mission was to land on the moon – looks like you all bought a one-way ticket”. What if the spacecraft design was so inflexible or unadaptable that the crew could not make a vital course correction to head back to earth by manually igniting the Lunar Module's engine?
Now a system of thought – our belief system does have some flexibility. Our beliefs help us make sense of the world. From what I’ve read online, some experts think our beliefs are somewhat like a software program always running in the background as we take in information and examine its source – checking for compatibility or conflicts with our existing beliefs. Our beliefs help form and/or modify a mental model for understanding the world, our self and others. Our beliefs tell us who we think we are, mark our place in the world and are essentially an ongoing personal narrative that anchors us to the here and now.
No one is perfect – no one knows everything. How mission-critical is it if you have some nonsense in your belief system? What would be the consequences? That depends on the mission and the kind of nonsense. What if there was no way to modify, edit or delete the nonsense portion of your belief system?
Problem 2:
Who still thinks there is a “law of believing” that “works for saint and sinner alike” (no, I’m not talking about The Force of Star Wars)? What If Joe PFAL-grad decides to throw himself off the Empire State Building because he thinks he can fly like a bird. He believes God would have to change all the laws of the universe not to accommodate his believing. If flying like a bird is mission-critical how bad would the consequences be if he does jump off the building?
What is the difference between problem 1 and problem 2?
Problem 1 is solved by scientific truth. Problem 2 remains unsolved – because it disregards scientific truth (like the law of gravity) and foolishly substitutes a supposed metaphysical truth (the law of believing); not only is problem 2 unsolved but has a tragic end – Joe is splat on the ground – but fortunately for TWI he subscribed to The Way Magazine and always followed suggestions like the occasional reminder in the magazine “remember The Way in your will”… * don’t forget to view the DVD bonus feature at the end of the post.
Well, I no longer subscribe to that law of believing nonsense that wierwille taught in PFAL. I used to think it was true. Fortunately, I am able to modify, edit or delete something in my belief system if it seems to be nonsense.
Scientific truth gives us no criteria for metaphysical truth. Therefore, what is needed is another definition of truth for the metaphysical realm. In reading up on philosophy, I lean toward one theory of what truth is – it’s called the correspondence theory of truth “In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.” (def. from Wikipedia). The fundamentalism in wierwille's nonsense doctrine does not correspond to how the real-world works. What seems to work for me in the real-world is loving God and loving my neighbor – and that means treating my neighbor like I would like to be treated.
In my humble opinion believing in "the law of believing" is a misplaced faith – I’ve heard it said many times in TWI that “we have to believe in our believing”. I have no problem with the simple faith mentioned in the Bible – a faith that has complete trust in God. And God should be the object of our faith - rather than whatever it is that I’m “believing for” . I think true faith is a trust in God – that He is sovereign and hears our prayers – and answers them as He sees fit – and maybe not always as we expect. Ephesians 3:20 should relieve us of any concerns that God is limited by our believing – for he is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we could ask or think.
So, Twinky, I’m off my rhetorical addressing, and back talking to you now.
How do you, as a professional wordsmith, argue for the goodness of God to a poor unbeliever who is all beat up, and caught up in the negatives of the world?
Is precisely some of the people I work with. One way is to demonstrate by actions, not a thing TWI was very good at.
8 hours ago, Mike said:
I’d love to hear your arguments for the goodness of God, and then I’ll tell you the answer I eventually got…. That is IF you can convince me that you want to meekly learn, even from a ringer like me.
Arguments? Huh?
Who cares what answer you got? You get the answer by living the life.
Your bit about "meekly learn" is straight out of the TWI playbook. DO NOT EVER try that one on me. The amount of abuse (that's ABUSE, ABUSE, ABUSE, that TWI meted out to so very many under the guise of them not being "meek," is beyond measure.
You wrote:
"Have you ever taken a step back and looked at the absurdity of some of the nonsense you post here?"
Do you mean to say that some of the nonsense I post here is not absurd?
*/*/*/*/*
You wrote:
"I mean, you're not a sage or a prophet or someone who has stumbled upon the ultimate source of wisdom for all ages."
You see, THIS is your problem (and many others here, too): You think that a Christian has to be someone real special or something if they want to do significant work with and for God. If that were the case we'd all be sunk.
I am SO glad that in the OT God would take any weirdo, misfit sinner who could believe to get jobs done. You got an elitism spirit suppressing your expectations.
Do you think I should take that sentence seriously? Let's see, should I believe you or the Word on this? I like what Peter said about it.
1 Peter 4:11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Let' see, I think I'm going to take Peter's perspective on this and not yours.
You wrote:
"PFAL is just another one of thousands of bible classes that have come and gone. Yes, it presents some controversial, unorthodox concepts that go against the flow of mainstream Christianity. Beyond that? Well, it's just another bible class and not a particularly good one at that."
Oh really !? Can you name a class that nearly always ended with every new student able to SIT? I saw MANY such classes. I have noticed that all the splinter groups have failed to do what PFAL did. We had about 1,000 new people learning SIT every month.
Please tell me about these so-called equal classes someone may have befuddled you with. I seriously doubt if many teach that the dead are dead, that ALL can SIT and do all nine if the loving heart to serve is there. The Loving Father, does that come out in the other classes out there.
One of the things that helped me was VPW's boldness. He got the job done. I don't see that happening elsewhere; not like the Glory Years.
*/*/*/*/*
You wrote:
"Perhaps if you didn't devalue critical thinking so much you might be able to recognize that. Then again, maybe you have too much invested in your quest to ever consider that."
Who ever said that I devalue it MUCH? Not me!
I only joked with you on your first sentence above. Please re-read what I said about critical thinking skills to Twinky a little earlier, and then tell me who was absurd: what I said, or your exaggerated distortion of what I said.
If that is the way you paid attention to PFAL then that is a likely reason for you not getting the results: you read into the text what the author does not intend.
I love critical thinking skills. I just don't make an idol of them. I don't depend on reason to be perfect. Do you?
Just to expand your horizons, as well as other over-critical thinkers here, what do you think the opposite skill is to critical thinking? How does one balance their skill set if critical thinking is lauded to the stars?
Now that is an easy question to flip off. You can say "stupidity is the opposite." Would you? But that would not be a skill.
I know that there is a good, wholesome, useful, profitable opposite to using critical thinking skills, but I bet you do not. Think about it a little.
When a situation calls for critical thinking, then I am all for them. Most people think there is no time when they are not useful.
Do you think very young children use critical thinking skills as they emerge from infancy. I mean a 1 or 2 year old.
I re-state my case, since you got it so wrong.
People over rely on critical thinking skills. In our culture, lately, critical thinking skills are exalted above the logic of the Word, as if they will ever find the truth on their own.
Part of the temptation of Eve was that she would have super thinking if she ate the wrong fruit. Smart people are often taken down by the adversary because they already have fallen into the idolatry of worshiping their own brains.
I suggest that all should seek something in addition to critical thinking skills, though they are very useful in more trivial, mundane matters, than fellow-shipping with God and His Word.
*/*/*/*
Just one more advanced thought: have you ever used critical thinking skills to evaluate critical thinking skills ?
That is exactly what I was dragging you through above. I am critically thinking about critical thinking skills. BLASPHEMY in academic circles, I know. Worse than plagiarism.
Would you forbid me to use critical thinking skills to expose the limitations of critical thinking, or is that coming to close to an idol for comfort.
Lots of fuel for laughs in that! Thanks !!!!!
This gem sounds like something wierwille said in the Advanced Class: “I am SO glad that in the OT God would take any weirdo, misfit sinner who could believe to get jobs done. You got an elitism spirit suppressing your expectations.”
This one is funny if you change the word “people” to “dogs” – then it reads like a promo for a dog-obedience school called PFAL: “ Can you name a class that nearly always ended with every new student able to SIT? I saw MANY such classes. I have noticed that all the splinter groups have failed to do what PFAL did. We had about 1,000 new - - - - - ->dogs learning SIT every month.” PFAL dog-obedience school is killing the competition!
Anytime a dog fails to SIT upon command, you can count on a concerned instructor to lovingly reprove the dumb dog: “If that is the way you paid attention to PFAL then that is a likely reason for you not getting the results: you read into the text what the author does not intend.” But a dog reading into the text - ya gotta admit that's still pretty impressive. Do dogs learn to read in PFAL or is that a requirement before they're enrolled in dog-obedience school? Man, a text reading dog! How good is their comprehension? Does one particular breed read better than others? I once knew a girl named Hermione and her dog would SIT for a spell. Yup! She’d pull out the old handy dandy Handbook of Hogwarts’ Spells - mumble some Latin sounding Lo Shonta Mecca Lekka High beeswax and by golly that dog would SIT! Mmmm now that I think of it she had another dog that could bark in five languages.
This sounds like a testimonial from Predators Anonymous: “One of the things that helped me was VPW's boldness. He got the job done. I don't see that happening elsewhere; not like the Glory Years.”
“I love critical thinking skills. I just don't make an idol of them. I don't depend on reason to be perfect. Do you? “said the big wierwille fan.
"what do you think the opposite skill is to critical thinking?” Being the best wierwille fan you can be. Be best!
“How does one balance their skill set if critical thinking is lauded to the stars?” Become a juggling astronomer.
“You can say "stupidity is the opposite." Would you? But that would not be a skill.” If you practice stupidity long enough, some might consider that a skill.
“I know that there is a good, wholesome, useful, profitable opposite to using critical thinking skills, but I bet you do not. Think about it a little.” Are you talking about anesthesiologists? Profitable? He11 yeah - they make good money - of course they pay a lot for malpractice insurance.
“When a situation calls for critical thinking, then I am all for them. Most people think there is no time when they are not useful.” I can think of plenty of times when they’re not useful: nap time, sleeping in a PFAL class, when having a nice tall glass of refreshing Kool-Aid from your cult-leader.
“Do you think very young children use critical thinking skills as they emerge from infancy. I mean a 1 or 2 year old.” Critical thinking often happens when children have time to practice making choices, plan their time, or create from nothing. A newborn has only a few basic needs – stuff like air, comfortable temperature, nourishment, relieving bodily wastes and of course lots of love, attention, cuddling, and stimulation from the new parents and the environment. It may seem insignificant to some folks – but it appears even an infant learns really quick if they cry Mom or Dad comes running in to check the diaper, see if they’re hungry or what’s wrong.
“People over rely on critical thinking skills. In our culture, lately, critical thinking skills are exalted above the logic of the Word, as if they will ever find the truth on their own.” Said the devoted follower in the cult of personality.
“Part of the temptation of Eve was that she would have super thinking if she ate the wrong fruit. Smart people are often taken down by the adversary because they already have fallen into the idolatry of worshiping their own brains.” I wonder how you get all that out of Genesis 3 Oh, you must be a PFAL Grad . Golly gee – that explains it.
“I suggest that all should seek something in addition to critical thinking skills, though they are very useful in more trivial, mundane matters, than fellow-shipping with God and His Word.” wierwille’s doctrine has at least four insidious elements: his signature intuition, fundamentalism, spiritualism, and Gnosticism. Who could ask for anything more?! ? !
“Just one more advanced thought: have you ever used critical thinking skills to evaluate critical thinking skills ?” Doesn’t everybody? Paul even advised believers to do that - “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith” II Corinthians 13:5
“That is exactly what I was dragging you through above. I am critically thinking about critical thinking skills. BLASPHEMY in academic circles, I know. Worse than plagiarism.” Is there a figure of speech in there somewhere? With great desire I have desired to desire what is about to transpire - giving you more grief for the bull$hit you sire - - of that I will not tire...do you conspire to mire this thread in more gobbledee gook misfire, I will be forced to hire a professional poop-compiler in full hazmat attire. I doubt if you'll find here a bull$hit buyer - and talking to TWI is like you're preaching to the choir. Could thestakes get any higher? yes - if you have no dinner 'round the ol' night owl campfire - your situation is indeed very dire - you should have put those PFAL books in a dryer - then you would have bull$hit jerky, something all wierwille-fans admire.... and drink more Kool-Aid said the crazy-town crier... If perchance you should acquire a new charismatic bull$hit supplier - hopefully they'll make more sense than the one you had prior...One thing to avoid is the wrath of your own ire - when you fling bull$hit it usually will backfire.
“Would you forbid me to use critical thinking skills to expose the limitations of critical thinking, or is that coming to close to an idol for comfort.” That’s like announcing “I will now create a rock that I cannot lift”…oh, I’m sorry was that a typos ? Did you mean “coming to close to an idle for comfort?” well…to be honest, I’m not that comfortable around people who are idle and spend most of their lazy-a$$-time doing nothing but blathering nonsense. Thank you for asking.
I'm here all week folks.
Edited by T-Bone what did the critical thinker say when disparaging the Catholic service? That was a critical mass.
“that's a yes and no for me. I get that, sort of, in a way” I believe your tentative answer here as well as some of the rest of your post seems to support my point.
I said “Having a rigid mindset is far worse than being wrong” because any system – or system of thought - that is unrepairable or unresponsive or inflexible regarding a fault condition, malfunction, sensory input warning, faulty design, system error, faulty programming, faulty data, sabotage, etc., then it would be IMPOSSIBLE to correct the problem.
Now depending on the system or system of thought - that could be mission-critical if the failure or disruption in the normal operation may result in a total failure of the mission.
Problem 1:
In the 1995 docudrama film Apollo 13 dramatizes the aborted 1970 Apollo 13 lunar mission, America's fifth crewed MISSION TO THE MOON, which was INTENDED to be the third to land. But an on-board explosion deprives their spacecraft of much of its oxygen supply and electrical power, which forces NASA's flight controllers to abort the Moon landing and REDFINES THE MISSION into one of seeking scientific and mechanical solutions to get the three astronauts home safely. I loved this movie! Oddly enough even though I knew how it would end – it was still a nail-biter of a thriller to get caught up in how they were going to fix the problem.
Now what if there was no flexibility in the mission? What if NASA said “sorry, guys but your mission was to land on the moon – looks like you all bought a one-way ticket”. What if the spacecraft design was so inflexible or unadaptable that the crew could not make a vital course correction to head back to earth by manually igniting the Lunar Module's engine?
Now a system of thought – our belief system does have some flexibility. Our beliefs help us make sense of the world. From what I’ve read online, some experts think our beliefs are somewhat like a software program always running in the background as we take in information and examine its source – checking for compatibility or conflicts with our existing beliefs. Our beliefs help form and/or modify a mental model for understanding the world, our self and others. Our beliefs tell us who we think we are, mark our place in the world and are essentially an ongoing personal narrative that anchors us to the here and now.
No one is perfect – no one knows everything. How mission-critical is it if you have some nonsense in your belief system? What would be the consequences? That depends on the mission and the kind of nonsense. What if there was no way to modify, edit or delete the nonsense portion of your belief system?
Problem 2:
Who still thinks there is a “law of believing” that “works for saint and sinner alike” (no, I’m not talking about The Force of Star Wars)? What If Joe PFAL-grad decides to throw himself off the Empire State Building because he thinks he can fly like a bird. He believes God would have to change all the laws of the universe not to accommodate his believing. If flying like a bird is mission-critical how bad would the consequences be if he does jump off the building?
What is the difference between problem 1 and problem 2?
Problem 1 is solved by scientific truth. Problem 2 remains unsolved – because it disregards scientific truth (like the law of gravity) and foolishly substitutes a supposed metaphysical truth (the law of believing); not only is problem 2 unsolved but has a tragic end – Joe is splat on the ground – but fortunately for TWI he subscribed to The Way Magazine and always followed suggestions like the occasional reminder in the magazine “remember The Way in your will”… * don’t forget to view the DVD bonus feature at the end of the post.
Well, I no longer subscribe to that law of believing nonsense that wierwille taught in PFAL. I used to think it was true. Fortunately, I am able to modify, edit or delete something in my belief system if it seems to be nonsense.
Scientific truth gives us no criteria for metaphysical truth. Therefore, what is needed is another definition of truth for the metaphysical realm. In reading up on philosophy, I lean toward one theory of what truth is – it’s called the correspondence theory of truth “In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.” (def. from Wikipedia). The fundamentalism in wierwille's nonsense doctrine does not correspond to how the real-world works. What seems to work for me in the real-world is loving God and loving my neighbor – and that means treating my neighbor like I would like to be treated.
In my humble opinion believing in "the law of believing" is a misplaced faith – I’ve heard it said many times in TWI that “we have to believe in our believing”. I have no problem with the simple faith mentioned in the Bible – a faith that has complete trust in God. And God should be the object of our faith - rather than whatever it is that I’m “believing for” . I think true faith is a trust in God – that He is sovereign and hears our prayers – and answers them as He sees fit – and maybe not always as we expect. Ephesians 3:20 should relieve us of any concerns that God is limited by our believing – for he is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we could ask or think.
No offense, but we're not taking about the same thing. I don't have the energy to sort it out. I'm sure your life will continue to go well, so no worries, mine will too. Thanks for the time.
That was an excellent source of inspiration for promos, reviews, and various and sundry redundancy of wierwille’s bull$hit:
Here’s a review from one PFAL-fan who was disappointed in “the teacher” not being smarmy enough:
“you were so excessively transparent in your tactics, that you failed at achieving a high level of shyster-ness.”
= = = = ==
In a related article review from Shyster Monthly, a promo to whet the appetite of every scammer in the Tri-altered-state-area, page 6:
“I'm glad you like my stick-to-it-nesss. I work on it, and am even writing a book (slowly) on the VALID and GOOD techniques for not allowing debate to sway a carefully formed opinion or stance.”
= = = = = =
On the front inside of the dust jacket used to “protect” the orange PFAL book:
“Reason and debate are overrated. Critical thinking skills are overrated. Can you tell me anything that you have ever seen really proved to be true? Most so-called proofs are really just strong persuasion, often merely repeated associations or emotion. Long ago, in science, I noticed that the more sure a proof is, the more trivial and far removed from human life it is. I think it works that way in other areas, like courtrooms. I consider all math proofs to be this kind of trivial. I like them, but don’t expect math kind of surety to ever be anywhere else in life, outside the Word and what is proved by it.
Very rarely is something proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. If it is, it is always trivial. I contend that a debate on a significant life topic can never end with a winner. It may LOOK like it ended at times. An apparent winner may be proclaimed by all, even the “loser,” but all could still be wrong. Who is to say the apparent loser did not simply forget an important point? Or a needed fact was just unknown. Later, after everyone goes home, the point may be remembered. THEN who is the winner??? And who will tell the dispersed audience?
If that’s not enough to make you PAY ridiculous amounts of any money for bull$hit – I don’t know what is!” (This sentence was not in the original "text")
= = = = =
Overhead in the admissions office of The Way Corps Training Program, the benefits of sleep -deprivation:
“Lots of times, especially here, when I or some other proPFAL person presents a point, there is a pile-on to overwhelm with text. Exhaustion is a great way to get your opponent to forget his line, or necessary points. OR, it can just cause the apparent loser to give up, and think he is wrong. But that would be sad, wouldn’t it?”
= == = =
Overheard in the office of the defense attorneys for Larry Nassar:
“Emotion is another great way to falsely win a debate. I saw a shyster lawyer attempt to do this in a big murder case in Georgia, USA just 2 months ago. I think it was Georgia. It was so egregious that, lawyers everywhere should have disbarred her, or at least proclaimed her way over the line. But they won’t. Luckily, this lawyer failed. I’m surprised no one has talked about her gross immorality, and obfuscation of truth. Emotion can influence the audience of a debate as well as the apparent loser-to-be. Truth can get really buried in a debate. There are lots of reasons I dodge debate here, at times. I admit it. That really bothers many. I care not. I care to get the Word out.”
= = = ==
Letter to the editor of TWI-Offshoots R Us magazine:
“I do not care about looking like I am winning a debate, especially with life’s losers. If, after decades, you (rhetorical) are not real keen on learning how to operate all 9 manifestations to bless people, and you KNOW about them, then in my book you are a loser. That should pre-occupy all of our attention, doing all the things Jesus did and greater. Just think of how many TWI souls you can save if you had all 9 all the time going! Why should I waste my time on detailed, exhaustive debate with people who are unthankful for being taught that God is good? That is the most wonderful early impression I got from PFAL from the start, and it continues today.”
= = = = =
Portion of a leaked internal memo to the editing staff at The American Christian Press suggesting a portion of the book “The Way Living in Love” by Elena S. Whiteside, COPYRIGHT 1972, should be redacted – proposed redaction in bold:
…we are especially concerned of exposure to legal jeopardy over Mister Wierwille’s comments that could be interpreted as willful disregard for the laws against plagiarism. The problem paragraphs in the manuscript that Mister Wierwille submitted to us are on page 209 and reads as follows (again note our legal advisors have indicated the portion that should be redacted in bold):
“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit – that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn’t, I dropped.
When people give more allegiance to stupid copyright customs that to learning to walk with God, then I have no interest in their infantile outcries. I put my life on the line…in the PFAL video. I called Howard Allen’s office and told…what I was doing and why.
Copyright, shmoppiright! You folks’d make me LoL Out Loud, if it weren’t so tragic how much light you are willing to reject, over really stupid positions of who owns what in a spiritual family. Your copyright objections will burn to smithereens in the fire of 1 Corinthians Chapter 3.”
Once again, our legal advisors are of the strong opinion that an unattributed copy of someone else's intellectual property may result in the perpetrator being forced to repay profits earned on the work to the original owner as well as costly court battles to clear the perpetrator’s name.
Thanks T-Bone for repeating my challenges
in my response to Twinky,
AND for showing everyone reading with a brain
that you have NO IDEA how to address
the points I made.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
24
20
15
18
Popular Days
Dec 6
25
Jan 11
15
Dec 7
10
Jan 14
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 24 posts
T-Bone 20 posts
waysider 15 posts
Bolshevik 18 posts
Popular Days
Dec 6 2021
25 posts
Jan 11 2022
15 posts
Dec 7 2021
10 posts
Jan 14 2022
9 posts
Popular Posts
WordWolf
I hate to be the one to break it to you, Mike, but..... you overrate your significance on this board. Things don't revolve around you, nor do we wish you'd suddenly start posting again when
Rocky
It won't work. Society has changed drastically since the 1970s. TWI is trying to come up with "new" ideas but said ideas are putting old wine in hopefully new wineskins... or new wine in old wineskins
Twinky
It was you who changed the topic, Mike. If you stayed on topic, you wouldn't drag everyone off into jumping on you. You have no idea what people are doing, but rest assured, offering "God's Wo
Rocky
It's nothing to be ashamed of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Who said anything about being ashamed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Translation:
"No matter how much sense Mike can make, you have a "Spectrum Excuse" from me and my good sense to JUST PAY NO ATTENTION to his logic or words."
Twinky you your transparency works against typical shyster lawyer tactics.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, your only honest move is to vote Twinky guilty."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
@Mike
Shyster lawyers in the USA. Lots of them exposed themselves in recent months. Some, however, showed their honesty.
Happily, the lawyers I've known are generally honest and genuinely do their best for their clients.
Please don't be insulting. I have not insulted you, or (so far as I'm aware) anyone else here. It's not my nature.
"Spectrum excuse"? Maybe an explanation (not excuse) for your adamancy in face of much opposing information.
Look, Mike, I like the way you stick to your guns and won't be swayed. In some ways, it's an admirable quality. It's clear that you really stick to the things you are passionate about. I just wish your "guns" were a bit better, and not water pistols.
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yes but what is super blessed? What is blessed? What is the logic to being blessed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Mike, Mike, Mike...
Has anyone here at GSC considered your schtick to be "good sense or logic?"
That ship sailed years ago. I don't claim to know or be able to discern what you "are thinking." I only know what you've written on GSC.
IF you were to be "on the spectrum," and IF we understood your words in such context, it would be much easier to accept, or at least understand, your logic.
Further, expressing, or responding with defensiveness doesn't necessarily suggest to your readers any strength resides in your arguments. OTOH, vulnerability DOES communicate strength and promotes connection/acceptance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike said on Monday at 02:39 PM :
“When you folks get desperate you change the topic to an attack on me with guesses and speculations. I hope you know this is apparent to all readers, including the ones you (plural) are supposing to "minster" to.
And speaking of those that are supposedly ministered to by all the whistleblowers here, I wonder if you ever thought through what those people do AFTER being so warned about the evils of one institution. Without the accurate Word, they go and get ripped off by some other entity. Duh!
When are you folks going to offer God's Word to people? How many are you undershepherding right now?
Time is a wasting, and you all will be held accountable for all the speculations and guessing you do.
Get a life! Teach one person the Word, if you are still able.”
= == = = = == = =
T-Bone:
Hey Mike, would you please clarify your above post – so I know exactly what you mean.
Did you mean I should offer God’s Word – teach one person the Word – under-shepherd someone - - exactly the way wierwille did?
In case you missed it or chose to ignore it, I’ll re-post part of what I said earlier on this thread on Sunday January 2nd 2022 at 12:54 AM:
“…Recently I was rereading Kristen Skedgell’s memoir Losing the Way: A Memoir of Spiritual Longing, Manipulation, Abuse, and Escape it got me thinking about this thread – TWI trying to revive the glory days – and comments from someone who still talks it up on how great wierwille and the PFAL class were/are. I try to take the person at face value and guess they’ve mastered how to ignore / hide disappointment. Going on what he said elsewhere I know he was never in the way corps. If he is being genuine in his posts - perhaps some folks are just happy thinking wierwille and PFAL are the greatest thing since rightly divided bread. I mean do they still really believe God talked to wierwille and taught him “The Word” so he could teach it to others. That’s the wierwille we all started out knowing about. But for those of us who went into the way corps – we got to see another side of him – the real side of him…this is like a tale of two wierwilles…
In her memoir Kristen relates an incident that happened at the way corps training campus in Rome City. It was during her block assignment in housekeeping. One of her responsibilities included the Coachman Suite – she would be attentive to caring for wierwille’s needs whenever he would visit the campus. Being excited about “the man of God” coming to visit, Kristen wrote a welcome letter and placed it on his pillow saying she would “do anything to make his time more blessed here”.
The following night, after the evening teaching wierwille called Kristen to his suite. He has a glass of Drambuie in one hand and a cigarette in the other – he sits very relaxed – he had taken off his suit coat and tie, the top button of his white shirt was undone, and his shoes were kicked off. He asks her to sit on the bed and they exchange some polite small talk. He then asks her if she really meant what she said in the little welcome note. “Of course” she says.
Then wierwille says “Well, there is one thing you can do for me. I’d like you to take off your clothes. I’d like to show you how to really make love to a man. You know what I’m talking about. You’re of age. Don’t you want me to show you how to have intercourse? How to make love to a man of God!”
In the book Kristen says “This is tantamount to a father soliciting sex from his daughter. The betrayal is unthinkable.” Trying to delay or avert wierwille’s advances, Kristen tried asking him how such an act is consistent with The Word. He explains that all things are pure to the pure…it’s a matter of keeping our minds renewed and centered on God…a man of God needs many women to satisfy his overwhelming needs.
There is nothing titillating when Kristen describes wierwille sexually molesting her. It’s like reading a police report of a daughter being raped by her own father. It is horrifying to read and I have no words to express my uncomfortable feelings over it…a part of me aches in sympathy for Kristen and then there’s utter revulsion over wierwille’s betrayal…afterwards he says to her “It’s the lockbox, honey. You have to keep this in the lockbox of your soul. Many of God’s people wouldn’t understand what we’ve just done.”
= = == ==
So, Mike, should I offer God’s Word – teach one person the Word – under-shepherd someone - - exactly the way wierwille did with Kristen – and who knows how many other women?
When you said “get a life” did you mean pursue a predatory life - just like wierwille did?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Twinky,
Maybe it was a typo in my punchline, but you missed the point I was making. I was saying you were so excessively transparent in your tactics, that you failed at achieving a high level of shyster-ness.
It is so obvious to me (and possible some lurkers observing) what your tactics are. That’ a plural “you” there; I mean nearly everyone here on this. You are so engaged with trying to undo what I say, that you expose your lack of understanding of what I am saying.
*/*/*/*/*
I'm glad you like my stick-to-it-nesss. I work on it, and am even writing a book (slowly) on the VALID and GOOD techniques for not allowing debate to sway a carefully formed opinion or stance.
Reason and debate are overrated.
Critical thinking skills are overrated.
Can you tell me anything that you have ever seen really proved to be true?
Most so-called proofs are really just strong persuasion, often merely repeated associations or emotion. Long ago, in science, I noticed that the more sure a proof is, the more trivial and far removed from human life it is. I think it works that way in other areas, like courtrooms. I consider all math proofs to be this kind of trivial. I like them, but don’t expect math kind of surety to ever be anywhere else in life, outside the Word and what is proved by it.
Very rarely is something proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. If it is, it is always trivial.
I contend that a debate on a significant life topic can never end with a winner.
It may LOOK like it ended at times. An apparent winner may be proclaimed by all, even the “loser,” but all could still be wrong.
Who is to say the apparent loser did not simply forget an important point? Or a needed fact was just unknown. Later, after everyone goes home, the point may be remembered. THEN who is the winner??? And who will tell the dispersed audience?
Lots of times, especially here, when I or some other proPFAL person presents a point, there is a pile-on to overwhelm with text. Exhaustion is a great way to get your opponent to forget his line, or necessary points. OR, it can just cause the apparent loser to give up, and think he is wrong. But that would be sad, wouldn’t it?
Emotion is another great way to falsely win a debate.
I saw a shyster lawyer attempt to do this in a big murder case in Georgia, USA just 2 months ago. I think it was Georgia. It was so egregious that, lawyers everywhere should have disbarred her, or at least proclaimed her way over the line. But they won’t. Luckily, this lawyer failed. I’m surprised no one has talked about her gross immorality, and obfuscation of truth.
Emotion can influence the audience of a debate as well as the apparent loser-to-be. Truth can get really buried in a debate.
There are lots of reasons I dodge debate here, at times. I admit it. That really bothers many. I care not. I care to get the Word out.
I do not care about looking like I am winning a debate, especially with life’s losers. If, after decades, you (rhetorical) are not real keen on learning how to operate all 9 manifestations to bless people, and you KNOW about them, then in my book you are a loser. That should pre-occupy all of our attention, doing all the things Jesus did and greater.
Just think of how many TWI souls you can save if you had all 9 all the time going!
*/*/*/*
Why should I waste my time on detailed, exhaustive debate with people who are unthankful for being taught that God is good? That is the most wonderful early impression I got from PFAL from the start, and it continues today.
When people give more allegiance to stupid copyright customs that to learning to walk with God, then I have no interest in their infantile outcries. I put my life on the line, here, in 1988 with openly bootlegging the PFAL videos. I called my Limb leader and then Howard Allen’s office and told them what I was doing and why.
Copyright, shmoppiright! You folks’d make me LoL Out Loud, if it weren’t so tragic how much light you are willing to reject, over really stupid positions of who owns what in a spiritual family. Your copyright objections will burn to smithereens in the fire of 1 Corinthians Chapter 3.
*/*/*
PFAL taught me how to read the other ancient revelations that God has given to us sinners, the Bible. This excites me; I bore easily hearing sensational news here of one sinner being worse than another.
Those sinners who think that their own breaking of the greatest commandment is not as egregious as another sinner’s breaking of the greatest commandment are blind. Plain and simple.
This was one of the first things that destroyed my Catholic mindset in PFAL: we all equally are sinners, breakers of the greatest commandment. Inventories of lesser sins is pure folly. You folks are WAY too sin conscious here.
*/*/*/*/*
So, Twinky, I’m off my rhetorical addressing, and back talking to you now.
How do you, as a professional wordsmith, argue for the goodness of God to a poor unbeliever who is all beat up, and caught up in the negatives of the world?
When first witnessing what I was learning in PFAL back in the early 1970s (Receive,Retain,Release), I quickly noticed that there is one BIG question on the street that nags at people. For some it is a theoretical nag; others can be totally overwhelmed by directly experiencing it.
It’s the question: WHY is the world so evil, when God is supposed to be so good? Why did a foreknowing God allow Lucifer and Adam to mess it all up?
Have you ever noticed how that bugs people to no end? How do you answer it? I mean, convincingly. I heard the old “free will” argument plenty of times, but it did not satisfy me, nor the poor souls I’d witness to. No consolation there at all for them.
If you try minister to an intellectual on this topic, you may see tactics thrown at you like I see thrown at me here. Exhaustion, emotion triggers, etc. Anything but dealing with the most important issues is what that kind of debate generally devolves to.
Have you ever been able to convince someone that God is good, in spite of the bad?
I’d love to hear your arguments for the goodness of God, and then I’ll tell you the answer I eventually got…. That is IF you can convince me that you want to meekly learn, even from a ringer like me.
But, if you just want another round of debate (like others here so obviously do) then (yawn) I’ll try my best to fit you into my calendar….. someday…. when I’m not busy. Yeah, that’s the ticket! When I’m not busy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
*grabs a wrench and uncrosses eyes, one at a time*
Mike, do you have your own personal review of Hannah Arendt's take on the Banality of Evil?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mike
Have you ever taken a step back and looked at the absurdity of some of the nonsense you post here?
I mean, you're not a sage or a prophet or someone who has stumbled upon the ultimate source of wisdom for all ages.
PFAL is just another one of thousands of bible classes that have come and gone. Yes, it presents some controversial, unorthodox concepts that go against the flow of mainstream Christianity. Beyond that? Well, it's just another bible class and not a particularly good one at that.
Perhaps if you didn't devalue critical thinking so much you might be able to recognize that. Then again, maybe you have too much invested in your quest to ever consider that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Never heard of her or it.
Do I need to?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
When parallel with if you want to, it's all math in the end.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Having a rigid mindset is far worse than being wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Banality of evil[edit]
Arendt's book [Eichmann in Jerusalem] introduced the expression and concept of the banality of evil.[7] Her thesis is that Eichmann was actually not a fanatic or a sociopath, but instead an extremely average and mundane person who relied on clichéd defenses rather than thinking for himself, was motivated by professional promotion rather than ideology, and believed in success which he considered the chief standard of "good society".[8] Banality, in this sense, does not mean that Eichmann's actions were in any way ordinary, or even that there is a potential Eichmann in all of us, but that his actions were motivated by a sort of complacency which was wholly unexceptional.[9] Many mid-20th century pundits were favorable to the concept.[10][11]
Edited by waysiderSource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#Banality_of_evil
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hmmmm, that's a yes and no for me. I get that, sort of, in a way.
It would be true in the process of learning, but not in knowing. There are things I want to be right about and entertaining alternatives won't serve my need. Once I know something and what I know is right as best I can see, that's good enough for me.
In religion it gets kicked around because there's an assumption that no one knows "for sure" and even since we have so many people that believe differently but swear they know for sure it all goes to prove that no one knows for sure, so there's a perceived value to staying open minded, and willing to change - "after all", etc.
Even within one's own beliefs there can be a means by which their source material can correct them when they get off target.
But the process of learning has an end goal which is to know something. I might say I'll never know it all or will always be learning and willing to consider alternatives, but I would never do that without serious consideration, as far as the basic things "I know".
I find in my experience, those who feel that way, even if they differ, allow for that rigidity - BECAUSE they themselves know what they know and learn to honor that state of being in others, as much as they allow it for themselves.
There's only conflict when it comes to societal concerns, where it crosses over into others lives. Otherwise, outside of the impetus to help others if I can, why would I care what someone else "believes" if it has no affect on me or if the affect is in any way a good one, for me....? I don't want to correct others "on principle", just for the fun of it. Put it this way - My God tells me to help others in active, individual ways and part of that is to tell them about Jesus Christ. I want others to share what I have and have the future I believe I have, because I believe it's a good one that allows them to find their own space and shape their own lives with the Creator, like I have, and maybe even in ways they can in turn share with me, to my own benefit...so hey! it's a win win. Or not, if someone doesn't I have to accept that.
In America today we have trouble living that way, I know it can be a challenge for me at times and others too it seems, but I do think the earliest conception of our governance was trying to avoid a social system that won't allow you to rise up or out of your "place", but to create a new opportunity to carve out a space for individual freedoms. Course that didn't apply to slaves but - yeah, it was a start. I am thankful to God for the lives of those upon whom this great vision of a country was built yet who were not allowed to participate in it's promise, who died in a foreign land and under a different sky than they'd been born to - I can't imagine what despair must have filled their hearts in the acceptance they lived in that allowed them to survive another day - for what? Talk about having hope.
Here I am today, I can only be the me I am and do what I can. And there are some things I am very rigid about, and that I don't believe I'm wrong about and that I won't change my mind about, barring a big smack on the head I can't miss. If I stand before a God someday who tells me I was wrong, what will I have to say other than hey, I thought that's what You meant, I'm glad to change my mind if I can still get on the boat going out. If that somehow condemns me for eternity, so be it. I can't help but think there will be a level of satisfaction just knowing - finally, for sure - the truth. In the meantime, I'm pretty tenacious about my beliefs.
If not sooner, see you there!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That was an excellent source of inspiration for promos, reviews, and various and sundry redundancy of wierwille’s bull$hit:
Here’s a review from one PFAL-fan who was disappointed in “the teacher” not being smarmy enough:
“you were so excessively transparent in your tactics, that you failed at achieving a high level of shyster-ness.”
= = = = ==
In a related article review from Shyster Monthly, a promo to whet the appetite of every scammer in the Tri-altered-state-area, page 6:
“I'm glad you like my stick-to-it-nesss. I work on it, and am even writing a book (slowly) on the VALID and GOOD techniques for not allowing debate to sway a carefully formed opinion or stance.”
= = = = = =
On the front inside of the dust jacket used to “protect” the orange PFAL book:
“Reason and debate are overrated. Critical thinking skills are overrated. Can you tell me anything that you have ever seen really proved to be true? Most so-called proofs are really just strong persuasion, often merely repeated associations or emotion. Long ago, in science, I noticed that the more sure a proof is, the more trivial and far removed from human life it is. I think it works that way in other areas, like courtrooms. I consider all math proofs to be this kind of trivial. I like them, but don’t expect math kind of surety to ever be anywhere else in life, outside the Word and what is proved by it.
Very rarely is something proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. If it is, it is always trivial. I contend that a debate on a significant life topic can never end with a winner. It may LOOK like it ended at times. An apparent winner may be proclaimed by all, even the “loser,” but all could still be wrong. Who is to say the apparent loser did not simply forget an important point? Or a needed fact was just unknown. Later, after everyone goes home, the point may be remembered. THEN who is the winner??? And who will tell the dispersed audience?
If that’s not enough to make you PAY ridiculous amounts of any money for bull$hit – I don’t know what is!” (This sentence was not in the original "text")
= = = = =
Overhead in the admissions office of The Way Corps Training Program, the benefits of sleep -deprivation:
“Lots of times, especially here, when I or some other proPFAL person presents a point, there is a pile-on to overwhelm with text. Exhaustion is a great way to get your opponent to forget his line, or necessary points. OR, it can just cause the apparent loser to give up, and think he is wrong. But that would be sad, wouldn’t it?”
= == = =
Overheard in the office of the defense attorneys for Larry Nassar:
“Emotion is another great way to falsely win a debate. I saw a shyster lawyer attempt to do this in a big murder case in Georgia, USA just 2 months ago. I think it was Georgia. It was so egregious that, lawyers everywhere should have disbarred her, or at least proclaimed her way over the line. But they won’t. Luckily, this lawyer failed. I’m surprised no one has talked about her gross immorality, and obfuscation of truth. Emotion can influence the audience of a debate as well as the apparent loser-to-be. Truth can get really buried in a debate. There are lots of reasons I dodge debate here, at times. I admit it. That really bothers many. I care not. I care to get the Word out.”
= = = ==
Letter to the editor of TWI-Offshoots R Us magazine:
“I do not care about looking like I am winning a debate, especially with life’s losers. If, after decades, you (rhetorical) are not real keen on learning how to operate all 9 manifestations to bless people, and you KNOW about them, then in my book you are a loser. That should pre-occupy all of our attention, doing all the things Jesus did and greater. Just think of how many TWI souls you can save if you had all 9 all the time going! Why should I waste my time on detailed, exhaustive debate with people who are unthankful for being taught that God is good? That is the most wonderful early impression I got from PFAL from the start, and it continues today.”
= = = = =
Portion of a leaked internal memo to the editing staff at The American Christian Press suggesting a portion of the book “The Way Living in Love” by Elena S. Whiteside, COPYRIGHT 1972, should be redacted – proposed redaction in bold:
…we are especially concerned of exposure to legal jeopardy over Mister Wierwille’s comments that could be interpreted as willful disregard for the laws against plagiarism. The problem paragraphs in the manuscript that Mister Wierwille submitted to us are on page 209 and reads as follows (again note our legal advisors have indicated the portion that should be redacted in bold):
“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit – that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn’t, I dropped.
When people give more allegiance to stupid copyright customs that to learning to walk with God, then I have no interest in their infantile outcries. I put my life on the line…in the PFAL video. I called Howard Allen’s office and told…what I was doing and why.
Copyright, shmoppiright! You folks’d make me LoL Out Loud, if it weren’t so tragic how much light you are willing to reject, over really stupid positions of who owns what in a spiritual family. Your copyright objections will burn to smithereens in the fire of 1 Corinthians Chapter 3.”
Edited by T-BoneOnce again, our legal advisors are of the strong opinion that an unattributed copy of someone else's intellectual property may result in the perpetrator being forced to repay profits earned on the work to the original owner as well as costly court battles to clear the perpetrator’s name.
edited by a plagiarizing comedy writer wannabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You wrote:
"Have you ever taken a step back and looked at the absurdity of some of the nonsense you post here?"
Do you mean to say that some of the nonsense I post here is not absurd?
*/*/*/*/*
You wrote:
"I mean, you're not a sage or a prophet or someone who has stumbled upon the ultimate source of wisdom for all ages."
You see, THIS is your problem (and many others here, too): You think that a Christian has to be someone real special or something if they want to do significant work with and for God. If that were the case we'd all be sunk.
I am SO glad that in the OT God would take any weirdo, misfit sinner who could believe to get jobs done. You got an elitism spirit suppressing your expectations.
Do you think I should take that sentence seriously? Let's see, should I believe you or the Word on this? I like what Peter said about it.
1 Peter 4:11
If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Let' see, I think I'm going to take Peter's perspective on this and not yours.
You wrote:
"PFAL is just another one of thousands of bible classes that have come and gone. Yes, it presents some controversial, unorthodox concepts that go against the flow of mainstream Christianity. Beyond that? Well, it's just another bible class and not a particularly good one at that."
Oh really !? Can you name a class that nearly always ended with every new student able to SIT? I saw MANY such classes. I have noticed that all the splinter groups have failed to do what PFAL did. We had about 1,000 new people learning SIT every month.
Please tell me about these so-called equal classes someone may have befuddled you with. I seriously doubt if many teach that the dead are dead, that ALL can SIT and do all nine if the loving heart to serve is there. The Loving Father, does that come out in the other classes out there.
One of the things that helped me was VPW's boldness. He got the job done. I don't see that happening elsewhere; not like the Glory Years.
*/*/*/*/*
You wrote:
"Perhaps if you didn't devalue critical thinking so much you might be able to recognize that. Then again, maybe you have too much invested in your quest to ever consider that."
Who ever said that I devalue it MUCH? Not me!
I only joked with you on your first sentence above. Please re-read what I said about critical thinking skills to Twinky a little earlier, and then tell me who was absurd: what I said, or your exaggerated distortion of what I said.
If that is the way you paid attention to PFAL then that is a likely reason for you not getting the results: you read into the text what the author does not intend.
I love critical thinking skills. I just don't make an idol of them. I don't depend on reason to be perfect. Do you?
Just to expand your horizons, as well as other over-critical thinkers here, what do you think the opposite skill is to critical thinking? How does one balance their skill set if critical thinking is lauded to the stars?
Now that is an easy question to flip off. You can say "stupidity is the opposite." Would you? But that would not be a skill.
I know that there is a good, wholesome, useful, profitable opposite to using critical thinking skills, but I bet you do not. Think about it a little.
When a situation calls for critical thinking, then I am all for them. Most people think there is no time when they are not useful.
Do you think very young children use critical thinking skills as they emerge from infancy. I mean a 1 or 2 year old.
I re-state my case, since you got it so wrong.
People over rely on critical thinking skills. In our culture, lately, critical thinking skills are exalted above the logic of the Word, as if they will ever find the truth on their own.
Part of the temptation of Eve was that she would have super thinking if she ate the wrong fruit. Smart people are often taken down by the adversary because they already have fallen into the idolatry of worshiping their own brains.
I suggest that all should seek something in addition to critical thinking skills, though they are very useful in more trivial, mundane matters, than fellow-shipping with God and His Word.
*/*/*/*
Just one more advanced thought: have you ever used critical thinking skills to evaluate critical thinking skills ?
That is exactly what I was dragging you through above. I am critically thinking about critical thinking skills. BLASPHEMY in academic circles, I know. Worse than plagiarism.
Would you forbid me to use critical thinking skills to expose the limitations of critical thinking, or is that coming to close to an idol for comfort.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Thank you for proving my point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Hannah Arendt also has a term she called "thoughtlessness". When you're not so busy. (Mike)
I feel Mike isn't really talking to anyone outside himself. That's not a slam on him. Just the way the dialogue feels, as an observation. . . Much they way Twig Fellowship felt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
“that's a yes and no for me. I get that, sort of, in a way” I believe your tentative answer here as well as some of the rest of your post seems to support my point.
I said “Having a rigid mindset is far worse than being wrong” because any system – or system of thought
Now depending on the system or system of thought
Problem 1:
In the 1995 docudrama film Apollo 13 dramatizes the aborted 1970 Apollo 13 lunar mission, America's fifth crewed MISSION TO THE MOON, which was INTENDED to be the third to land. But an on-board explosion deprives their spacecraft of much of its oxygen supply and electrical power, which forces NASA's flight controllers to abort the Moon landing and REDFINES THE MISSION into one of seeking scientific and mechanical solutions to get the three astronauts home safely. I loved this movie! Oddly enough even though I knew how it would end – it was still a nail-biter of a thriller to get caught up in how they were going to fix the problem.
Now what if there was no flexibility in the mission? What if NASA said “sorry, guys but your mission was to land on the moon – looks like you all bought a one-way ticket”. What if the spacecraft design was so inflexible or unadaptable that the crew could not make a vital course correction to head back to earth by manually igniting the Lunar Module's engine?
Now a system of thought – our belief system does have some flexibility. Our beliefs help us make sense of the world. From what I’ve read online, some experts think our beliefs are somewhat like a software program always running in the background as we take in information and examine its source – checking for compatibility or conflicts with our existing beliefs. Our beliefs help form and/or modify a mental model for understanding the world, our self and others. Our beliefs tell us who we think we are, mark our place in the world and are essentially an ongoing personal narrative that anchors us to the here and now.
No one is perfect – no one knows everything. How mission-critical is it if you have some nonsense in your belief system? What would be the consequences? That depends on the mission and the kind of nonsense. What if there was no way to modify, edit or delete the nonsense portion of your belief system?
Problem 2:
Who still thinks there is a “law of believing” that “works for saint and sinner alike” (no, I’m not talking about The Force of Star Wars)? What If Joe PFAL-grad decides to throw himself off the Empire State Building because he thinks he can fly like a bird. He believes God would have to change all the laws of the universe not to accommodate his believing. If flying like a bird is mission-critical how bad would the consequences be if he does jump off the building?
What is the difference between problem 1 and problem 2?
Problem 1 is solved by scientific truth. Problem 2 remains unsolved – because it disregards scientific truth (like the law of gravity) and foolishly substitutes a supposed metaphysical truth (the law of believing); not only is problem 2 unsolved but has a tragic end – Joe is splat on the ground – but fortunately for TWI he subscribed to The Way Magazine and always followed suggestions like the occasional reminder in the magazine “remember The Way in your will”… * don’t forget to view the DVD bonus feature at the end of the post.
Well, I no longer subscribe to that law of believing nonsense that wierwille taught in PFAL. I used to think it was true. Fortunately, I am able to modify, edit or delete something in my belief system if it seems to be nonsense.
Scientific truth gives us no criteria for metaphysical truth. Therefore, what is needed is another definition of truth for the metaphysical realm. In reading up on philosophy, I lean toward one theory of what truth is – it’s called the correspondence theory of truth “In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.” (def. from Wikipedia). The fundamentalism in wierwille's nonsense doctrine does not correspond to how the real-world works. What seems to work for me in the real-world is loving God and loving my neighbor – and that means treating my neighbor like I would like to be treated.
In my humble opinion believing in "the law of believing" is a misplaced faith – I’ve heard it said many times in TWI that “we have to believe in our believing”. I have no problem with the simple faith mentioned in the Bible – a faith that has complete trust in God. And God should be the object of our faith - rather than whatever it is that I’m “believing for” . I think true faith is a trust in God – that He is sovereign and hears our prayers – and answers them as He sees fit – and maybe not always as we expect. Ephesians 3:20 should relieve us of any concerns that God is limited by our believing – for he is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we could ask or think.
= = = = = = =
Edited by T-Bone*DVD bonus feature: Medieval Barber Theodoric of York
this is mission control - we can't remotely edit your post; you're on your own, Captain T-Bone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Is precisely some of the people I work with. One way is to demonstrate by actions, not a thing TWI was very good at.
Arguments? Huh?
Who cares what answer you got? You get the answer by living the life.
Your bit about "meekly learn" is straight out of the TWI playbook. DO NOT EVER try that one on me. The amount of abuse (that's ABUSE, ABUSE, ABUSE, that TWI meted out to so very many under the guise of them not being "meek," is beyond measure.
Just shut it, Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Lots of fuel for laughs in that! Thanks !!!!!
This gem sounds like something wierwille said in the Advanced Class:
“I am SO glad that in the OT God would take any weirdo, misfit sinner who could believe to get jobs done. You got an elitism spirit suppressing your expectations.”
This one is funny if you change the word “people” to “dogs” – then it reads like a promo for a dog-obedience school called PFAL:
“ Can you name a class that nearly always ended with every new student able to SIT? I saw MANY such classes. I have noticed that all the splinter groups have failed to do what PFAL did. We had about 1,000 new - - - - - ->dogs learning SIT every month.” PFAL dog-obedience school is killing the competition!
Anytime a dog fails to SIT upon command, you can count on a concerned instructor to lovingly reprove the dumb dog:
“If that is the way you paid attention to PFAL then that is a likely reason for you not getting the results: you read into the text what the author does not intend.” But a dog reading into the text - ya gotta admit that's still pretty impressive. Do dogs learn to read in PFAL or is that a requirement before they're enrolled in dog-obedience school? Man, a text reading dog! How good is their comprehension? Does one particular breed read better than others? I once knew a girl named Hermione and her dog would SIT for a spell. Yup! She’d pull out the old handy dandy Handbook of Hogwarts’ Spells - mumble some Latin sounding Lo Shonta Mecca Lekka High beeswax and by golly that dog would SIT! Mmmm now that I think of it she had another dog that could bark in five languages.
This sounds like a testimonial from Predators Anonymous:
“One of the things that helped me was VPW's boldness. He got the job done. I don't see that happening elsewhere; not like the Glory Years.”
“I love critical thinking skills. I just don't make an idol of them. I don't depend on reason to be perfect. Do you? “said the big wierwille fan.
"what do you think the opposite skill is to critical thinking?” Being the best wierwille fan you can be. Be best!
“How does one balance their skill set if critical thinking is lauded to the stars?” Become a juggling astronomer.
“You can say "stupidity is the opposite." Would you? But that would not be a skill.” If you practice stupidity long enough, some might consider that a skill.
“I know that there is a good, wholesome, useful, profitable opposite to using critical thinking skills, but I bet you do not. Think about it a little.” Are you talking about anesthesiologists? Profitable? He11 yeah - they make good money - of course they pay a lot for malpractice insurance.
“When a situation calls for critical thinking, then I am all for them. Most people think there is no time when they are not useful.” I can think of plenty of times when they’re not useful: nap time, sleeping in a PFAL class, when having a nice tall glass of refreshing Kool-Aid from your cult-leader.
“Do you think very young children use critical thinking skills as they emerge from infancy. I mean a 1 or 2 year old.” Critical thinking often happens when children have time to practice making choices, plan their time, or create from nothing. A newborn has only a few basic needs – stuff like air, comfortable temperature, nourishment, relieving bodily wastes and of course lots of love, attention, cuddling, and stimulation from the new parents and the environment. It may seem insignificant to some folks – but it appears even an infant learns really quick if they cry Mom or Dad comes running in to check the diaper, see if they’re hungry or what’s wrong.
“People over rely on critical thinking skills. In our culture, lately, critical thinking skills are exalted above the logic of the Word, as if they will ever find the truth on their own.” Said the devoted follower in the cult of personality.
“Part of the temptation of Eve was that she would have super thinking if she ate the wrong fruit. Smart people are often taken down by the adversary because they already have fallen into the idolatry of worshiping their own brains.” I wonder how you get all that out of Genesis 3 Oh, you must be a PFAL Grad . Golly gee – that explains it.
“I suggest that all should seek something in addition to critical thinking skills, though they are very useful in more trivial, mundane matters, than fellow-shipping with God and His Word.” wierwille’s doctrine has at least four insidious elements: his signature intuition, fundamentalism, spiritualism, and Gnosticism. Who could ask for anything more?! ? !
“Just one more advanced thought: have you ever used critical thinking skills to evaluate critical thinking skills ?” Doesn’t everybody? Paul even advised believers to do that - “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith” II Corinthians 13:5
“That is exactly what I was dragging you through above. I am critically thinking about critical thinking skills. BLASPHEMY in academic circles, I know. Worse than plagiarism.” Is there a figure of speech in there somewhere? With great desire I have desired to desire what is about to transpire - giving you more grief for the bull$hit you sire - - of that I will not tire...do you conspire to mire this thread in more gobbledee gook misfire, I will be forced to hire a professional poop-compiler in full hazmat attire. I doubt if you'll find here a bull$hit buyer - and talking to TWI is like you're preaching to the choir. Could the stakes get any higher? yes - if you have no dinner 'round the ol' night owl campfire - your situation is indeed very dire - you should have put those PFAL books in a dryer - then you would have bull$hit jerky, something all wierwille-fans admire.... and drink more Kool-Aid said the crazy-town crier... If perchance you should acquire a new charismatic bull$hit supplier - hopefully they'll make more sense than the one you had prior...One thing to avoid is the wrath of your own ire - when you fling bull$hit it usually will backfire.
“Would you forbid me to use critical thinking skills to expose the limitations of critical thinking, or is that coming to close to an idol for comfort.” That’s like announcing “I will now create a rock that I cannot lift”…oh, I’m sorry was that a typos ? Did you mean “coming to close to an idle for comfort?” well…to be honest, I’m not that comfortable around people who are idle and spend most of their lazy-a$$-time doing nothing but blathering nonsense. Thank you for asking.
I'm here all week folks.
Edited by T-Bonewhat did the critical thinker say when disparaging the Catholic service? That was a critical mass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
No offense, but we're not taking about the same thing. I don't have the energy to sort it out. I'm sure your life will continue to go well, so no worries, mine will too. Thanks for the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks T-Bone for repeating my challenges
in my response to Twinky,
AND for showing everyone reading with a brain
that you have NO IDEA how to address
the points I made.
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.