Why? Does this figure into helping us find out if the phrase "absent Chrst" is useful or hurtful?
Regarding actual versions of the bible. Just like the word "trinity" is not found in any version of the bible. Guess how many times the phrase "absent Christ" is found in any version of the bible, both Old and New Testament?
If you want to take a jab at me over being a Trinitarian – please, please, pleasedo so on that Trinity thread I told you about earlier.
Ok, let me get 2 questions straight.
Did I hear you right about 4 hours ago:
That you no longer believe in a just, good God?
YET, you have a definitive set of posts that establish the Trinity?
That’s an odd combination, so I wanted to ask if I heard you right.
Four hours ago you wrote:
“If I croak tonight – it would be sad cuz I’m only on season 3 of The West Wing. But if there is a higher power…if this is a moral universe…I hope things ultimately work out for all involved…whatever that means.”
I could tell that you were using the standard academia techniques to tear down the existence of God’s Word in the NT Canon thread.
I had seen them before, and could tell those techniques were in existence to suck out all believing in Divine Inspiration of the Bible.
This is the reason you did not want to look at my 10 year collection of Bible verses on the Canon over on that thread.They would have gone contrary to your purposes: to logically disprove the integrity of God’s written Word, and then God.
*/*/*/*/*
Now here in the Absent Christ thread you want to advocate the Trinity, and THAT would make the absent Christ really stupid.
Of course, if the Trinity were “true” then Jesus would have an omnipresence that God has, and the idea of absent, or sent away, wouldn’t make sense. I get it.
I just wasn’t sure if I heard you right, so I thought I’d ask.
*/*/*/*/*
As for me switching from the canon thread and the absence thread, I pretty much finished my study of JCNG about a year before the first edition came out. I got a bunch of new items from that book, but I also had a few that were not in it, and I showed you one.
Feel free to answer my "Who fathered Jesus?" in brief form here.
As for learning from your Trinity exposition, I have no desire or time. That topic I need not learn anything.
But the canon and the absent Christ are beta testing grounds for me, and I am learning a lot here. I have hardly even begun to show my stuff in the canon thread; a deluge of verses.
The absent Christ thread is teaching me what the big complaint is with VPW's teaching the absent Christ in the class, and the Word taking the place of the absent Christ.
I loved how clear those PFAL teachings were, and my KJV followups went fine for me.
What I don't understand is how all you folks missed it.
First challenge: how can wierwille claim he can get back to the authentic prophecy when it was first given if he is only looking at translations and versions instead of the manuscripts written in the original biblical languages? In my humble opinion, it is doubtful wierwille was even competent to read and understand any of the biblical languages anyway.
How? Only two logically possible methods:via five-senses, and via spirit.
I know nothing about languages, except my failed attempts to learn Latin as a child, and French as a teenager.
Yet, I can push myself to maximally operate my 5-senses approaches to include as much of the old languages as possible, both the ancient scripture fragments, and the modern Critical Greek texts from 1550 A.D. and later.
I can work lexicons, and concordances, and inter-linears to a decent extent.
I can also consult with others who have learned more.
I can also pray to God to guide my 5-senses efforts by His spirit within me, and by the texts and teachers that He brings across my path.
If all that fails, and I very much NEED a breakthrough, because my resources are failing, then He might go so far as to give me a revelation to get over the hump.IT CAN HAPPEN !!!
I think that same thing happened for VPW, and can happen for you.
In that thread on "Light Began To Dawn" VPW goes through this same kind of explanation that I just gave.
God is no respecter of persons.
He lets His rain fall on just and the unjust alike.
God is good; we are not.
God is willing to take the MOST UNLIKELY of humans and help them to help others. He helped young Solomon help others in phenomenal ways. PLUS, while He was helping young Solomon help others, God had complete foreknowledge of what a nasty, unworthy character old Solomon was going to be.
I marvel at God's forgiveness of future sins.
Why doesn't anyone talk about those things here?
Regarding actual versions of the bible. Just like the word "trinity" is not found in any version of the bible. Guess how many times the phrase "absent Christ" is found in any version of the bible, both Old and New Testament?
Zero
How many times does it say Christ is currently HIDDEN or NOT VISIBLE to the 5-senses.
Acts Chapter One counts as #1
Hebrews has one, that Oldiesman? found, so count #2
Ok, let me get 2 questions straight.
Did I hear you right about 4 hours ago:
That you no longer believe in a just, good God?
YET, you have a definitive set of posts that establish the Trinity?
That’s an odd combination, so I wanted to ask if I heard you right.
Four hours ago you wrote:
“If I croak tonight – it would be sad cuz I’m only on season 3 of The West Wing. But if there is a higher power…if this is a moral universe…I hope things ultimately work out for all involved…whatever that means.”
I could tell that you were using the standard academia techniques to tear down the existence of God’s Word in the NT Canon thread.
I had seen them before, and could tell those techniques were in existence to suck out all believing in Divine Inspiration of the Bible.
This is the reason you did not want to look at my 10 year collection of Bible verses on the Canon over on that thread.They would have gone contrary to your purposes: to logically disprove the integrity of God’s written Word, and then God.
Now here in the Absent Christ thread you want to advocate the Trinity, and THAT would make the absent Christ really stupid.
Of course, if the Trinity were “true” then Jesus would have an omnipresence that God has, and the idea of absent, or sent away, wouldn’t make sense. I get it.
I just wasn’t sure if I heard you right, so I thought I’d ask.
As for me switching from the canon thread and the absence thread, I pretty much finished my study of JCNG about a year before the first edition came out. I got a bunch of new items from that book, but I also had a few that were not in it, and I showed you one.
Feel free to answer my "Who fathered Jesus?" in brief form here.
As for learning from your Trinity exposition, I have no desire or time. That topic I need not learn anything.
But the canon and the absent Christ are beta testing grounds for me, and I am learning a lot here. I have hardly even begun to show my stuff in the canon thread; a deluge of verses.
The absent Christ thread is teaching me what the big complaint is with VPW's teaching the absent Christ in the class, and the Word taking the place of the absent Christ.
I loved how clear those PFAL teachings were, and my KJV followups went fine for me.
What I don't understand is how all you folks missed it.
I am learning.
I said “But if there is a higher power…if this is a moral universe…I hope things ultimately work out for all involved…whatever that means” I thought I was clear on my supposition.
There’s several theories on how the Bible is inspired. I’ve been open about leaning toward limited inspiration – which reflects an honest assessment ofdivine-human co-authored book…and it seems obvious you have your father-in-the-Word’s disdain for any environment or community that is concerned with the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship. There’s two reasonsI don’t want to look at your 10 year collection of Bible blah blah blahover on the other NT canon thread:
1.It’s on another thread…geez Louise I just talked about that
So, you go over there and post your gripe where it belongs on the appropriate thread, mister!
2.Because you seem to follow in the deceptive and nonsensical footsteps of your father-in-the-Word, your postulations are also contradictory and nonsensical and not worth my time. You’re actually your own worst enemy for defending your position and exemplify the spirit of wierwille by whitewashing his incompetence and lack of integrity – it seems neither him nor you are able to appreciate the distinction between what is an honest or dishonest handling of the Bible. You are self-sabotaging. You have no credibility.
“Of course, if the Trinity were “true” then Jesus would have an omnipresence that God has, and the idea of absent, or sent away, wouldn’t make sense.” I told you to look into transcendence and immanence – because – duh – they’re divine attributes of Jesus Christ gosh sometimes you are so silly …and…uhm…nice try on doing some Trinity-bashing on this absent Christ thread…geez Louise how many times do I have to tell you?Take it over to the appropriate thread.
How many times does it say Christ is currently HIDDEN or NOT VISIBLE to the 5-senses.
Acts Chapter One counts as #1
Hebrews has one, that Oldiesman? found, so count #2
Mike, please use your mind and even common sense. Did you know that "hidden" has a different meaning than "absent"? A dictionary definition of hidden is "being out of sight or not readily apparent". A dictionary definition of "absent" is "not present at a usual or expected place". Instead followers of Jesus Christ who read the bible know that Jesus Christ is now at "the right hand of God" according to Mark 16:19, Acts 2:33, Acts 7:55 & 56, Romans 8:34, Colossians 3:1 and Hebrews 10:12. Through Jesus Christ, who is now standing or seated at "the right hand of God", followers of Jesus Christ have received the gift of Holy Spirit as a connection with God through Jesus Christ. Do you at least believe the Holy Spirit connection with God through Jesus Christ?
Regarding actual versions of the bible. Just like the word "trinity" is not found in any version of the bible. Guess how many times the phrase "absent Christ" is found in any version of the bible, both Old and New Testament?
Zero
Thanks, Mark. I thought this had been mentioned. My thought was first, your post was second - the second time establishes it! Hey! I didn't write the book.
Perhaps there's some phrasing in the Bible detailing the required replacement of God's only begotten.. Or the desired replacement. Or the necessary replacement. Specifically, where in the Bible does it say that the Bible+Christ-in-you+believing+renewed-mind shall replace God's only begotten?
You have the software it might be easier for you to find.
Perhaps there's some phrasing in the Bible detailing the required replacement of God's only begotten.. Or the desired replacement. Or the necessary replacement. Specifically, where in the Bible does it say that the Bible+Christ-in-you+believing+renewed-mind shall replace God's only begotten?
This is a little complicated to explain. And it’s just me thinking out loud. I have more questions than answers. As far as I know I’m a Trinitarian - not because I mindlessly subscribe to some formula - but because certain passages - whether in the immediate context or correlated to the same idea mentioned elsewhere - seem to suggest there’s an ongoing interaction of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Is it necessary to breakdown who does what, when and how?
I was reviewing a book I mentioned earlier (The Trivialization of God by David McCullough) and that got me to reflect on my mindset in TWI. McCullough talked about physicist Sir Isaac Newton being a religious man believed he was discovering laws established by the Creator. Many devout students of creation still continue with that conviction. McCullough says the consequence - intended or not has been the crowding out of the mysterious in favor of the factual - a flattening of transcendence into the measurable data of immanence - a forced retirement of God to a benign but wholly unnecessary corner of the universe. In place of God, we now have control and explanation. When results can be repeated with predictable regularity, theories graduate into laws. Explanation supplies the know-how for further control. As our mastery increases God seems less and less necessary.
I have an annoying habit of playing “that actor looks like/voice sounds like/ is that so-and-so ?” while my wife and I are watching a commercial, TV show or movie. Drives her nuts! …anyway I found myself relating this stuff from the Trivialization book to this absent Christ thread and more broadly to wierwille’s tendencies to put God in a box, inform followers what God , Christ or The Holy Spirit can or cannot do, and promote a “law of believing” as a means of controlling reality.
Of course there’s distinct differences in real science that discovers and analyzes stuff in the physical realm - regardless if they believe in a higher power or not - and religious con artists who spout dubious speculations and try to sell people on magical thinking.
But the one similarity I see between real science and wierwille’s pseudoscience is that a practitioner of either “discipline” does not need God in the pursuit…in a similar vein wierwille’s Christ is assigned to a chair next to God way out there somewhere - His presence, His lordship, His power is seen as not needed since “the Word takes the place of the absent Christ.”
Other ripples in my stream of consciousness post - are a suspicion That wierwille may have had an intense desire to have followers see him as the high priest who has God’s ear - and wondering if his Trinity-bashing was a smoke and mirrors trick to misdirect our curiosity…our awareness away from God the Father, Christ and The Holy Spirit and how they work together in our lives.
I’m not promoting the Trinity. I don’t get off on dictating to others how they should think of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit (or holy spirit if you prefer).
I love systematic theology and reading the Bible in various translations and I easily fall back into my old TWI-habit of fixating on knowledge more than practice…I know what to do…wait until winter and on a heavy snow fall day I’ll kick back in my recliner and imagine God telling me I’ll learn more about the risen Christ just like they did in the first century if I will just get off my lazy duff and follow my Lord. Keep it simple stupid. Stupid is my middle name . Well it’s my other middle name…you realize Hyphen is my middle name too.
old TWI-habit of fixating on knowledge more than practice
But it's not knowledge at all. It's belief. Or as you've seen me render it more accurately according to scientifically precise usage as seen through spiritual binoculars: BELEEF.
It's a pseudo knowledge. BELEEF takes the place of absent knowledge. One cannot believe one's way to knowing. victor wants you to BLEEVE that you know that you know that you know. BELEEVING is not knowing.
A higher knowledge is available. It can be seen, but it can't be described. It is nothing to be possessed. Anyone who claims to have it is the one who most certainly does not.
ALL scripture (not just ancient Near Eastern) POINTS to that which cannot be named. But the pointer itself is not the knowledge, the Truth.
Christ said KNOW the Truth. BELEEF has no place where Truth is concerned.
The paradox is spiritual knowledge is available once one has wiped away all knowledge and belief. It cannot be found in a class. Only a completely free mind can perceive the Truth pointed to in scripture. Another cannot perceive it for you.
This is the childlike mind. Not childish. Childlike. A child's mind is not yet filled with belief and knowledge; rather, a child's mind is empty and free to be in awe of God.
But it's not knowledge at all. It's belief. Or as you've seen me render it more accurately according to scientifically precise usage as seen through spiritual binoculars: BELEEF.
It's a pseudo knowledge. BELEEF takes the place of absent knowledge. One cannot believe one's way to knowing. victor wants you to BLEEVE that you know that you know that you know. BELEEVING is not knowing.
Yeah - I think you’ve got something there…where I screwed up while back in TWI was having the PFAL belief system running in the back of my mind - that gave “anything wierwille” unconditional acceptance…and any other knowledge, observations, or experiences not compatible with wierwille’s ideology was rejected.
...where I screwed up while back in TWI was having the PFAL belief system running in the back of my mind - that gave “anything wierwille” unconditional acceptance…and any other knowledge, observations, or experiences not compatible with wierwille’s ideology was rejected.
I get it. I saw many doing that.
I partially did it, both in time and topic, but never fully.
I was too scared to go all the way, Corps that is.
That was from 1972 to 1984ish
Then things went crazy, and I was up and down on lots of things for a decade.
In 1998 I started fully accepting the written forms of PFAL, but STILL reserved the right to notice occasional errors in his taped teachings. That is where I stand today, exactly. That is one of my big postulates.
Before I 1998 I tinkered with that Postulate.
My earliest Postulate in 1972 was again PARTIAL, but in full acceptance was the vague notion that there were passages in the film class that were “straight prophecy.”I didn't have a way to identify exactly where these passages were, though.
I was often very fearful that maybe the whole ministry was a money making sham, or worse, a trick of the devil. I got over that after I worked a few years at HQ.
But I still held a lot of reservations and would be unhappy with VPW’s teaching tapes once in a while, so it took me eleven years before I went out WoW.
*/*/*/*
T-Bone I noticed in your two posts above a mention that you value acting the Word now more than knowing the Word. I can relate to that. I do it too. My Wow year convinced me enough in PFAL that I totally took the ending seriously, where they taught us to be WoWs for life. I did that all the way, and here I am doing it now.I saw it help people, and it helped me.
As for taking every word VPW spoke on the Corps Tapes, absolutely never did I see them as God-breathed, but at times they could be, here and there.
But even today it is face to face action on what simple things we were taught in the class, and NOT the Corps training.I am so glad my suspicions about the Corps were NEVER quenched. Instead they got bigger and bigger as the 1980s progressed.
*/*/*/
LoL, you could have saved me a lot of typing, had I known your were taking the Trinitarian view of the PFAL model of the absent Christ.THAT explains a lot of things that you objected to, like me calling the Trinity a debilitating set of ideas.
So, if I adopt the Trinity Postulate, then you’re right, the absent Christ sucks.
I never took it the way you described above, though. It sounds like you were in the Corps.
I can do a more detailed response tomorrow, to your 2 posts above.
*/*/*/*/*
The way I took it, the absent Christ, with my PFALPostulates,
was he was NOT absent IN ME!He wasn’t absent IN YOU!
It was only for others, not born again that he was absent.
The Word explained to me that it is BETTER to have “him” in me spiritually (gift of holy spirit) all the time, than for me to have Jesus present on Earth OUTSIDE of me.
The way I get to know my Lord Jesus is I get the chance to play him in a stage production of Real Life, in the way I help people close at hand… and even sometimes on the Internet, but I prefer the local face-to-face helping if it is available.
Here I am substituting the idea of an actor for an ambassador.
I was playing “what would Jesus do” in a way.I was learning Jesus’s character like Hal Holbrook got to know Mark Twain’s character, by playing the writer on stage for decades.
*/*/*
Is there any way you can handle the "who fathered Jesus" question?
OR, can you at least see WHY I am comfortable thinking that The Holy Spirit did the act of fathering Jesus?It pretty plainly states it 3 times in scripture.
So, I am totally comfortable with this: the Holy Spirit is a description of God,
and the Father is a role that God plays.
And we get to call God by the term of endearment, Daddy.
I partially did it, both in time and topic, but never fully.
I was too scared to go all the way, Corps that is.
That was from 1972 to 1984ish
Then things went crazy, and I was up and down on lots of things for a decade.
In 1998 I started fully accepting the written forms of PFAL, but STILL reserved the right to notice occasional errors in his taped teachings. That is where I stand today, exactly. That is one of my big postulates.
Before I 1998 I tinkered with that Postulate.
My earliest Postulate in 1972 was again PARTIAL, but in full acceptance was the vague notion that there were passages in the film class that were “straight prophecy.”I didn't have a way to identify exactly where these passages were, though.
I was often very fearful that maybe the whole ministry was a money making sham, or worse, a trick of the devil. I got over that after I worked a few years at HQ.
But I still held a lot of reservations and would be unhappy with VPW’s teaching tapes once in a while, so it took me eleven years before I went out WoW.
*/*/*/*
T-Bone I noticed in your two posts above a mention that you value acting the Word now more than knowing the Word. I can relate to that. I do it too. My Wow year convinced me enough in PFAL that I totally took the ending seriously, where they taught us to be WoWs for life. I did that all the way, and here I am doing it now.I saw it help people, and it helped me.
As for taking every word VPW spoke on the Corps Tapes, absolutely never did I see them as God-breathed, but at times they could be, here and there.
But even today it is face to face action on what simple things we were taught in the class, and NOT the Corps training.I am so glad my suspicions about the Corps were NEVER quenched. Instead they got bigger and bigger as the 1980s progressed.
*/*/*/
LoL, you could have saved me a lot of typing, had I known your were taking the Trinitarian view of the PFAL model of the absent Christ.THAT explains a lot of things that you objected to, like me calling the Trinity a debilitating set of ideas.
So, if I adopt the Trinity Postulate, then you’re right, the absent Christ sucks.
I never took it the way you described above, though. It sounds like you were in the Corps.
I can do a more detailed response tomorrow, to your 2 posts above.
*/*/*/*/*
The way I took it, the absent Christ, with my PFALPostulates,
was he was NOT absent IN ME!He wasn’t absent IN YOU!
It was only for others, not born again that he was absent.
The Word explained to me that it is BETTER to have “him” in me spiritually (gift of holy spirit) all the time, than for me to have Jesus present on Earth OUTSIDE of me.
The way I get to know my Lord Jesus is I get the chance to play him in a stage production of Real Life, in the way I help people close at hand… and even sometimes on the Internet, but I prefer the local face-to-face helping if it is available.
Here I am substituting the idea of an actor for an ambassador.
I was playing “what would Jesus do” in a way.I was learning Jesus’s character like Hal Holbrook got to know Mark Twain’s character, by playing the writer on stage for decades.
*/*/*
Is there any way you can handle the "who fathered Jesus" question?
OR, can you at least see WHY I am comfortable thinking that The Holy Spirit did the act of fathering Jesus?It pretty plainly states it 3 times in scripture.
So, I am totally comfortable with this: the Holy Spirit is a description of God,
and the Father is a role that God plays.
And we get to call God by the term of endearment, Daddy.
Oh goodness - This is hilarious!
Reminiscent of a private message conversation I had with a certain Grease Spotter. The pm was unsolicited.
Perhaps this person felt their case was too weak and frivolous to argue in an open forum. Maybe they feared humiliation or rejection by all.
On the thread I was making some point along the lines of people fall for wierwille’s baloney because they don’t or won’t exercise critical thinking skills.
So - boom - out of the blue - I get a pm from this person, saying they would sort of agree with me - if only I would give a little on who is really at fault in the baloney case - the victim or the Vickster. ..
(side note here - have you ever seen the movieAnd Justice For All ? Al Pacino plays a lawyer forced to defend a guilty judge…good film - good courtroom drama and comedy!…anyway…)
back to the pm:
This person proceeds to expound on their own great critical thinking skills - due to nature and nurture - he says he was lucky to be raised to be a scientist by a real NASA rocket scientist ...also adding by the time he was in High School he was being groomed to be a physics professor, and he was teaching Einstein’s relativity theory to his HS peers in an after school seminar.
...When he said all that - I realized why he went on and on about preposterous stuff - - on Grease Spot somewhere I had mentioned E=mc2 and pointed out wierwille’s believing equals receiving formula by comparison was half-baked nonsense.
Sometimes I am fascinated by the extent to which a desperate snake oil salesman will go in pushing their unaware wares but I don’t like to lead someone on, so I cut the conversation short (my side was short) saying I find his whole spiel contradictory - because on the one hand he brags about his background and overdeveloped cognitive skills and on the other hand extolls the greatness of wierwille and PFAL.
Basically I told him if he wanted to refute any of my points about how incompetent and dishonest wierwille was - then he should do so on the thread.
Ever notice how some wierwille-fans attempt to gaslight a Grease Spotter by suggesting the person does not know how to properly do analytical thinking…or they are focusing on the sins of others…or they forgot all the good stuff in PFAL.
I can spot someone being condescending from a mile away….you’d think I’d be intimidated when they’re all up close and personal in a pm unabashedly showing me how superior they are to me. But I’m not. I’m somewhat entertained - and the compassionate side of me is always interested in how to relate to someone who seems to be stuck in debilitating mindset that I was in some 36 years ago. It’s not like I really enjoy shooting holes in petrified baloney - I have this silly notion I can somehow help this person out of the hole they dug themselves into.
~ ~ ~ ~
I heard a really cool story on The West Wing - it has to do with having compassion , relating to others and helping a friend work out a problem. You’ve probably heard this somewhere else….Anyway here it goes:
Fred on his way to work is walking across the street - not looking where he’s going and falls into an open manhole to a sewer being repaired.
He’s down there for a long time before he hears someone walking by. He hollers “hey up there - I’m stuck down here - can you help me” . The pedestrian was a doctor - so he takes out his little pad , writes a prescription and tosses the note down to Fred. The doc moves on.
A little later a priest is walking by. Fred heard his footsteps and yells “hey I’m stuck down here - help!”. The priest immediately springs into action and cautiously standing near the manhole the priest says a prayer for Fred and then moves on.
Finally it’s the end of the day - and Fred hears his friend and coworker Joe whistling as he walked by. Joe liked to whistle show tunes. Fred yells up “Joe - Joe it’s me Fred - I’m stuck down here in the manhole - please help!”
Without batting an eye Joe jumps down into the manhole. Fred yells “Joe you idiot - now we’re both stuck down here!”
Joe replies back “yeah but not for long - I’ve fallen down here before and I know the way out”.
What an entertaining thread. Like I don’t understand what absent means.
Oh goodness - This is hilarious! .Forced hilarity if you ask me.
Reminiscent of a private message conversation I had with a certain Grease Spotter. The pm was unsolicited. .Forced sincerity, here, in starting to hiding the identity of "a certain Grease Spotter." OF COURSE, it was I who did the unsolicited PM,as everyone already knew.
Perhaps this person felt their case was too weak and frivolous to argue in an open forum. Maybe they feared humiliation or rejection by all.
.I send out private messages once in a while. I posted in detail to this thread here (or in that other thread) that I prefer to deal with SOME matters in private.
There are matters that I feel incompetent to handle, especially in public. So, I sometimes try in private.
PLUS, as I mentioned in other places, some topics SHOULD be handled by everyone in private, but that is another topic.
Of course , as soon as you, T-Bone said you did not feel comfortable with that mode of communication, I cut it off.
Now here you are misrepresenting me AGAIN, this time about a private correspondence.
On the thread I was making some point along the lines of people fall for wierwille’s baloney because they don’t or won’t exercise critical thinking skills.
So - boom - out of the blue - I get a pm from this person, saying they would sort of agree with me - if only I would give a little on who is really at fault in the baloney case - the victim or the Vickster. ..side note here - have you ever seen the movie “ And Justice For All” ? Al Pacino plays a lawyer forced to defend a guilty judge…good film - good courtroom drama and comedy!…anyway…back to the pm.
.I would disagree with that characterization of me, without checking andre-reading the letter I sent. But that is a distraction from what I have to say now.
This person proceeds to expound on their own great critical thinking skills - due to nature and nurture - his dad worked at NASA or something - also adding in high school this future Grease Spotter was already explaining the theory of relativity to his classmates. I realized the relevance of that because on Grease Spot somewhere I had mentioned E=mc2 and pointed out wierwille’s believing equals receiving formula was half-baked nonsense.
.I am still studying what the Bible says about believing, especially Jesus' words on it.
Like many PFAL things in your head these days, your mis-understandings of, and your misdirected criticisms of, the law of believing are uninteresting to me.
Sometimes I am fascinated by the extent to which a desperate snake oil salesman will go in pushing their unaware wares but I don’t like to lead someone on, so I cut the conversation short (my side was short ) saying I find his whole spiel contradictory - because on the one hand he brags about his background and overdeveloped cognitive skills and on the other hand extolls the greatness of wierwille and PFAL.
.Thanks for giving me the opportunity to AGAIN correct your mis-impressions.
I was born and raised in an extremely high tech world of the aerospace industry. I had critical thinking skills drilled into me at a very early age, and I ate them up.
Unlike you and many here, I started applying my critical thinking skills to VPW, TWI, PFAL, WayCorps, and many more things I saw my fellow PFAL grads swallow whole, on first early hearings.
I envied them; I took the slow lane of VERIFYING what i was being taught in the ministry.
So while many were getting sucked into the Corps machine in the 1970s I was plugging away at critical thinking EVERYTHING that I was being taught.
I finished the job well enough to go WoW in 1982, a full 11 years of critical thinking since my first twig in 1971.
I love critical thinking, and I applied it to PFAL, and it passed ALL of my tests.
When I applied critical thinking to VPW, he passed on many accounts, and failed on a few others.
When I applied critical thinking to TWI, it wobbled this way and that, passing some critical ones, but headed for disaster on some others. Arround 1986 it started failing my critical thinking tests.
Applying critical thinking to the Corps program, it failed over and over on some points, and passed on a couple.
Applying it to the WoW program it finally passed after 11 years of scrutiny.
I count my WoW year as very successful, and continuing today. I also finalized my opinion on the Corps program during that year, and carefully advised my WoW sister about its wobbles. She was apprentice Corps that year, or maybe one step before that. At the end of our WoW year I strongly advised her to NOT do the Corps program. I was calling it Wierwille's Folly then in a hushed voice. She thanks me today for this advice.
I know for sure that there were and are some great believers who went through the Corps program, but in my estimate, at least half of them were ringers and should never have applied or been accepted.
I disagreed with VPW on what the Corps training produced in half the members. I totally agreed with VPW that if the decision were forced, which program to axe and which to keep, the WoW program would be the winner.
Basically I told him if he wanted to refute any of my points about how incompetent and dishonest wierwille was - then he should do so on the thread. . I disagree. Talking about other peoples' sins in public is unseemly, especially about a man that has hundreds of posters viciously posting on his sin (or perceived sin) constantly, for 29 years.
Ever notice how some wierwille-fans attempt to gaslight a Grease Spotter by suggesting the person does not know how to properly do analytical thinking…or they are focusing on the sins of others…or they forgot all the good stuff in PFAL.
.Gaslighting only works for those in prison already.
You are not under my spell, and neither is anyone else here. If I were a gaslighter, I'd be a very stupid one in trying it here.
I can spot someone being condescending from a mile away….you’d think I’d be intimidated when they’re all up close and personal in a pm unabashedly showing me how superior they are to me.
. BUT can you spot the difference between righteous, humble, beneficial offerings compared to a self-interest driven offering in negative condescension? I think not, in this case.
But I’m not. I’m somewhat entertained - and the compassionate side of me is always interested in how to relate to someone who seems to be stuck in debilitating mindset that I was in some 36 years ago.
.No, you missed the opportunity to do your critical thinking BEFORE swallowing the whole package.
You admitted that you went into full throttle accepting everything, and THEN you learned about critical thinking.
I was taught it from childhood and applied it to the class before I even took it, while I was taking it multiple times, and for a few years afterwards. THEN I accepted it, after it passed years of my critical thinking tests.
Like i say I was lucky, not superior.
I was given superior data, so I have a heavier duty to share it.
It’s not like I really enjoy shooting holes in petrified baloney - I have this silly notion I can somehow help this person out of the hole they dug themselves into.
. Yet you mock me and misrepresent me constantly.
What an entertaining thread. Like I don’t understand what absent means.
. Do you understand what "Return" means?
Tell me what will be BETTER in the category of presence at Jesus Christ's return? What will be MORE PRESENT at his Return, if he is not absent now?
I think you totally do NOT know what "absence" means in the context it is used in PFAL, because you look at it with Trinity filters.
When you rightly divide soul from spirit you will start to understand that there is no spiritual absence of Christ in VPW's teaching on the absent Christ.
It is physical absence only. He is present within believers at the moment, SPIRITUALLY.
At his Return he will be physically present also, because right now he is PHYSICALLY absent.
The way I took it, the absent Christ, with my PFALPostulates,
was he was NOT absent IN ME!He wasn’t absent IN YOU!
It was only for others, not born again that he was absent.
The Word explained to me that it is BETTER to have “him” in me spiritually (gift of holy spirit) all the time, than for me to have Jesus present on Earth OUTSIDE of me.
Because he only can be present in one place at a time (when he was here physically) but now, ahh, he can potentially be in millions of places at the same time. a.k.a. the great mystery "Christ in You, the Hope of Glory."
Because he only can be present in one place at a time (when he was here physically) but now, ahh, he can potentially be in millions of places at the same time. a.k.a. the great mystery "Christ in You, the Hope of Glory."
Mike, I do appreciate you respecting my wishes to stop PMing me on the matter.
I’m not surprised by your unintended acknowledgement of being crafty…makes me think of the Michael Scott character on the TV showThe Office. He’s a boss who has good intentions, but he lacks self-awareness – he usually doesn’t realize he behaves like an a$$hole to others…Man, being a recovering a$$hole myself, I can relate!
Oh, and thanks for admitting to using sneaky manipulative tactics. I rest my case.
~ ~~ ~
btw, Mike
I copy all PMs into a word doc and save them on my laptop and iCloud.
When I say copy – I mean I copy everything exact – both the incoming message and my outgoing response.
~ ~ ~ ~
I feel it would be inappropriate to rehash your PM propaganda on this thread – you’ve derailed it umpteen times as it is – so I have a proposal:
1.Per approval, preferences, and parameters of Grease Spot Café rules and moderators I propose to start a thread in About the Way forum along the lines of
Mike’s mischaracterization of Opposing Views and other deceitful tactics
If mods suggest I start it in Open, some other forum or not at all – I’m cool with that.
But make no mistake I will continue to be vigilant in calling out Mike’s baloney, and will try to shoot the appropriate number of holes in the propaganda without going down a rabbit hole and derailing a thread.
This whole thing might be a stupid idea and a waste of time. I’m cool with that. I waste a lot of my time thinking up stupid stuff anyway.
On the other hand, a thread dedicated to this mischaracterizing issue might help avoid derailment on other threads – especially when it develops into a Mike thread rather than a thread on the absent Christ.
2.For the starter post I will copy and paste the aforementioned unsolicited PM of yours along with my response.
3.Every Grease Spotter can submit comments, replies, brief “quote couplets” from other threads as evidence to show they said blah blah– then Mike mischaracterizes it, and he says you really said or meant to say oh blah dee oh blah dah
4.My intent is not to bash Mike or have everyone pile on and play gotcha. The purpose is to clarify all sides of an argument and debate the ISSUES and not attack the person.
Because he only can be present in one place at a time (when he was here physically) but now, ahh, he can potentially be in millions of places at the same time. a.k.a. the great mystery "Christ in You, the Hope of Glory."
That is good that the commentary of Colossians 1:27, which I have quoted from below, understands that “Christ in you” represents the Spirit of Christ, which according to Romans 8:9, also represents the “Spirit of God”, which also can be called the “Holy Spirit” which we know was first given on the day of Pentecost according to Acts 2:1-4. Jesus Christ before he ascended to heaven to be with God his Father knew about this as read in Acts 1:4-8.
Quote
Colossians 1:27
To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Romans 8:9-11
9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. (NIV)
Quote
Acts 1:4-8
4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." 6 So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" 7 He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (NIV)
Quote
Acts 2:1-4
2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. (NIV)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
427
271
423
257
Popular Days
Feb 14
142
Oct 13
105
Jan 18
101
Oct 8
88
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 427 posts
T-Bone 271 posts
OldSkool 423 posts
Nathan_Jr 257 posts
Popular Days
Feb 14 2023
142 posts
Oct 13 2022
105 posts
Jan 18 2023
101 posts
Oct 8 2022
88 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
First off, Biblically speaking, Christ has never been absent...that doctrine does not come close to occuring anywhere in the Bible. Yet the way international teaches the word of God takes the place of
Bolshevik
Mike's apparent anger toward Christ and emphasis on obedience . . . that's Wayworld . . . that's the annihilation of the individual
waysider
Soooo...He used ONE verse from the Amplified Bible, HALF a chapter from the New English Bible and required PFAL '77 students to get some version from the 1800's that has a name so unremarkable you can
Posted Images
Mark Sanguinetti
Regarding actual versions of the bible. Just like the word "trinity" is not found in any version of the bible. Guess how many times the phrase "absent Christ" is found in any version of the bible, both Old and New Testament?
Zero
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ok, let me get 2 questions straight.
Did I hear you right about 4 hours ago:
That you no longer believe in a just, good God?
YET, you have a definitive set of posts that establish the Trinity?
That’s an odd combination, so I wanted to ask if I heard you right.
Four hours ago you wrote:
“If I croak tonight – it would be sad cuz I’m only on season 3 of The West Wing. But if there is a higher power…if this is a moral universe…I hope things ultimately work out for all involved…whatever that means.”
I could tell that you were using the standard academia techniques to tear down the existence of God’s Word in the NT Canon thread.
I had seen them before, and could tell those techniques were in existence to suck out all believing in Divine Inspiration of the Bible.
This is the reason you did not want to look at my 10 year collection of Bible verses on the Canon over on that thread. They would have gone contrary to your purposes: to logically disprove the integrity of God’s written Word, and then God.
*/*/*/*/*
Now here in the Absent Christ thread you want to advocate the Trinity, and THAT would make the absent Christ really stupid.
Of course, if the Trinity were “true” then Jesus would have an omnipresence that God has, and the idea of absent, or sent away, wouldn’t make sense. I get it.
I just wasn’t sure if I heard you right, so I thought I’d ask.
*/*/*/*/*
As for me switching from the canon thread and the absence thread, I pretty much finished my study of JCNG about a year before the first edition came out. I got a bunch of new items from that book, but I also had a few that were not in it, and I showed you one.
Feel free to answer my "Who fathered Jesus?" in brief form here.
As for learning from your Trinity exposition, I have no desire or time. That topic I need not learn anything.
But the canon and the absent Christ are beta testing grounds for me, and I am learning a lot here. I have hardly even begun to show my stuff in the canon thread; a deluge of verses.
The absent Christ thread is teaching me what the big complaint is with VPW's teaching the absent Christ in the class, and the Word taking the place of the absent Christ.
I loved how clear those PFAL teachings were, and my KJV followups went fine for me.
What I don't understand is how all you folks missed it.
I am learning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
How? Only two logically possible methods: via five-senses, and via spirit.
I know nothing about languages, except my failed attempts to learn Latin as a child, and French as a teenager.
Yet, I can push myself to maximally operate my 5-senses approaches to include as much of the old languages as possible, both the ancient scripture fragments, and the modern Critical Greek texts from 1550 A.D. and later.
I can work lexicons, and concordances, and inter-linears to a decent extent.
I can also consult with others who have learned more.
I can also pray to God to guide my 5-senses efforts by His spirit within me, and by the texts and teachers that He brings across my path.
If all that fails, and I very much NEED a breakthrough, because my resources are failing, then He might go so far as to give me a revelation to get over the hump. IT CAN HAPPEN !!!
I think that same thing happened for VPW, and can happen for you.
In that thread on "Light Began To Dawn" VPW goes through this same kind of explanation that I just gave.
God is no respecter of persons.
He lets His rain fall on just and the unjust alike.
God is good; we are not.
God is willing to take the MOST UNLIKELY of humans and help them to help others. He helped young Solomon help others in phenomenal ways. PLUS, while He was helping young Solomon help others, God had complete foreknowledge of what a nasty, unworthy character old Solomon was going to be.
I marvel at God's forgiveness of future sins.
Why doesn't anyone talk about those things here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
How many times does it say Christ is currently HIDDEN or NOT VISIBLE to the 5-senses.
Acts Chapter One counts as #1
Hebrews has one, that Oldiesman? found, so count #2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I said “But if there is a higher power…if this is a moral universe…I hope things ultimately work out for all involved…whatever that means” I thought I was clear on my supposition.
There’s several theories on how the Bible is inspired. I’ve been open about leaning toward limited inspiration – which reflects an honest assessment of divine-human co-authored book…and it seems obvious you have your father-in-the-Word’s disdain for any environment or community that is concerned with the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship. There’s two reasons I don’t want to look at your 10 year collection of Bible blah blah blah over on the other NT canon thread:
1. It’s on another thread…geez Louise I just talked about that
So, you go over there and post your gripe where it belongs on the appropriate thread, mister!
2. Because you seem to follow in the deceptive and nonsensical footsteps of your father-in-the-Word, your postulations are also contradictory and nonsensical and not worth my time. You’re actually your own worst enemy for defending your position and exemplify the spirit of wierwille by whitewashing his incompetence and lack of integrity – it seems neither him nor you are able to appreciate the distinction between what is an honest or dishonest handling of the Bible. You are self-sabotaging. You have no credibility.
“Of course, if the Trinity were “true” then Jesus would have an omnipresence that God has, and the idea of absent, or sent away, wouldn’t make sense.” I told you to look into transcendence and immanence – because – duh – they’re divine attributes of Jesus Christ
gosh sometimes you are so silly …and…uhm…nice try on doing some Trinity-bashing on this absent Christ thread… geez Louise how many times do I have to tell you? Take it over to the appropriate thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Mike, please use your mind and even common sense. Did you know that "hidden" has a different meaning than "absent"? A dictionary definition of hidden is "being out of sight or not readily apparent". A dictionary definition of "absent" is "not present at a usual or expected place". Instead followers of Jesus Christ who read the bible know that Jesus Christ is now at "the right hand of God" according to Mark 16:19, Acts 2:33, Acts 7:55 & 56, Romans 8:34, Colossians 3:1 and Hebrews 10:12. Through Jesus Christ, who is now standing or seated at "the right hand of God", followers of Jesus Christ have received the gift of Holy Spirit as a connection with God through Jesus Christ. Do you at least believe the Holy Spirit connection with God through Jesus Christ?
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thanks, Mark. I thought this had been mentioned. My thought was first, your post was second - the second time establishes it! Hey! I didn't write the book.
Perhaps there's some phrasing in the Bible detailing the required replacement of God's only begotten.. Or the desired replacement. Or the necessary replacement. Specifically, where in the Bible does it say that the Bible+Christ-in-you+believing+renewed-mind shall replace God's only begotten?
You have the software it might be easier for you to find.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
ZERO! That is only a religious question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thanks, Mark.
In other words, it's a man-made private interpretation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
YES!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Uh-oh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Thank you for helping me laugh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
This is a little complicated to explain. And it’s just me thinking out loud. I have more questions than answers. As far as I know I’m a Trinitarian - not because I mindlessly subscribe to some formula - but because certain passages - whether in the immediate context or correlated to the same idea mentioned elsewhere - seem to suggest there’s an ongoing interaction of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Is it necessary to breakdown who does what, when and how?
I was reviewing a book I mentioned earlier (The Trivialization of God by David McCullough) and that got me to reflect on my mindset in TWI. McCullough talked about physicist Sir Isaac Newton being a religious man believed he was discovering laws established by the Creator. Many devout students of creation still continue with that conviction. McCullough says the consequence - intended or not has been the crowding out of the mysterious in favor of the factual - a flattening of transcendence into the measurable data of immanence - a forced retirement of God to a benign but wholly unnecessary corner of the universe. In place of God, we now have control and explanation. When results can be repeated with predictable regularity, theories graduate into laws. Explanation supplies the know-how for further control. As our mastery increases God seems less and less necessary.
I have an annoying habit of playing “that actor looks like/voice sounds like/ is that so-and-so ?” while my wife and I are watching a commercial, TV show or movie. Drives her nuts!
…anyway I found myself relating this stuff from the Trivialization book to this absent Christ thread and more broadly to wierwille’s tendencies to put God in a box, inform followers what God , Christ or The Holy Spirit can or cannot do, and promote a “law of believing” as a means of controlling reality.
Of course there’s distinct differences in real science that discovers and analyzes stuff in the physical realm - regardless if they believe in a higher power or not - and religious con artists who spout dubious speculations and try to sell people on magical thinking.
But the one similarity I see between real science and wierwille’s pseudoscience is that a practitioner of either “discipline” does not need God in the pursuit…in a similar vein wierwille’s Christ is assigned to a chair next to God way out there somewhere - His presence, His lordship, His power is seen as not needed since “the Word takes the place of the absent Christ.”
Other ripples in my stream of consciousness post - are a suspicion That wierwille may have had an intense desire to have followers see him as the high priest who has God’s ear - and wondering if his Trinity-bashing was a smoke and mirrors trick to misdirect our curiosity…our awareness away from God the Father, Christ and The Holy Spirit and how they work together in our lives.
I’m not promoting the Trinity. I don’t get off on dictating to others how they should think of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit (or holy spirit if you prefer).
I love systematic theology and reading the Bible in various translations and I easily fall back into my old TWI-habit of fixating on knowledge more than practice…I know what to do…wait until winter and on a heavy snow fall day I’ll kick back in my recliner and imagine God telling me I’ll learn more about the risen Christ just like they did in the first century if I will just get off my lazy duff and follow my Lord. Keep it simple stupid. Stupid is my middle name . Well it’s my other middle name…you realize Hyphen is my middle name too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
But it's not knowledge at all. It's belief. Or as you've seen me render it more accurately according to scientifically precise usage as seen through spiritual binoculars: BELEEF.
It's a pseudo knowledge. BELEEF takes the place of absent knowledge. One cannot believe one's way to knowing. victor wants you to BLEEVE that you know that you know that you know. BELEEVING is not knowing.
A higher knowledge is available. It can be seen, but it can't be described. It is nothing to be possessed. Anyone who claims to have it is the one who most certainly does not.
ALL scripture (not just ancient Near Eastern) POINTS to that which cannot be named. But the pointer itself is not the knowledge, the Truth.
Christ said KNOW the Truth. BELEEF has no place where Truth is concerned.
The paradox is spiritual knowledge is available once one has wiped away all knowledge and belief. It cannot be found in a class. Only a completely free mind can perceive the Truth pointed to in scripture. Another cannot perceive it for you.
This is the childlike mind. Not childish. Childlike. A child's mind is not yet filled with belief and knowledge; rather, a child's mind is empty and free to be in awe of God.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah - I think you’ve got something there…where I screwed up while back in TWI was having the PFAL belief system running in the back of my mind - that gave “anything wierwille” unconditional acceptance…and any other knowledge, observations, or experiences not compatible with wierwille’s ideology was rejected.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I get it. I saw many doing that.
I partially did it, both in time and topic, but never fully.
I was too scared to go all the way, Corps that is.
That was from 1972 to 1984ish
Then things went crazy, and I was up and down on lots of things for a decade.
In 1998 I started fully accepting the written forms of PFAL, but STILL reserved the right to notice occasional errors in his taped teachings. That is where I stand today, exactly. That is one of my big postulates.
Before I 1998 I tinkered with that Postulate.
My earliest Postulate in 1972 was again PARTIAL, but in full acceptance was the vague notion that there were passages in the film class that were “straight prophecy.” I didn't have a way to identify exactly where these passages were, though.
I was often very fearful that maybe the whole ministry was a money making sham, or worse, a trick of the devil. I got over that after I worked a few years at HQ.
But I still held a lot of reservations and would be unhappy with VPW’s teaching tapes once in a while, so it took me eleven years before I went out WoW.
*/*/*/*
T-Bone I noticed in your two posts above a mention that you value acting the Word now more than knowing the Word. I can relate to that. I do it too. My Wow year convinced me enough in PFAL that I totally took the ending seriously, where they taught us to be WoWs for life. I did that all the way, and here I am doing it now. I saw it help people, and it helped me.
As for taking every word VPW spoke on the Corps Tapes, absolutely never did I see them as God-breathed, but at times they could be, here and there.
But even today it is face to face action on what simple things we were taught in the class, and NOT the Corps training. I am so glad my suspicions about the Corps were NEVER quenched. Instead they got bigger and bigger as the 1980s progressed.
*/*/*/
LoL, you could have saved me a lot of typing, had I known your were taking the Trinitarian view of the PFAL model of the absent Christ. THAT explains a lot of things that you objected to, like me calling the Trinity a debilitating set of ideas.
So, if I adopt the Trinity Postulate, then you’re right, the absent Christ sucks.
I never took it the way you described above, though. It sounds like you were in the Corps.
I can do a more detailed response tomorrow, to your 2 posts above.
*/*/*/*/*
The way I took it, the absent Christ, with my PFAL Postulates,
was he was NOT absent IN ME! He wasn’t absent IN YOU!
It was only for others, not born again that he was absent.
The Word explained to me that it is BETTER to have “him” in me spiritually (gift of holy spirit) all the time, than for me to have Jesus present on Earth OUTSIDE of me.
The way I get to know my Lord Jesus is I get the chance to play him in a stage production of Real Life, in the way I help people close at hand… and even sometimes on the Internet, but I prefer the local face-to-face helping if it is available.
Here I am substituting the idea of an actor for an ambassador.
I was playing “what would Jesus do” in a way. I was learning Jesus’s character like Hal Holbrook got to know Mark Twain’s character, by playing the writer on stage for decades.
*/*/*
Is there any way you can handle the "who fathered Jesus" question?
OR, can you at least see WHY I am comfortable thinking that The Holy Spirit did the act of fathering Jesus? It pretty plainly states it 3 times in scripture.
So, I am totally comfortable with this:
the Holy Spirit is a description of God,
and the Father is a role that God plays.
And we get to call God by the term of endearment, Daddy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Oh goodness - This is hilarious!
Reminiscent of a private message conversation I had with a certain Grease Spotter. The pm was unsolicited.
Perhaps this person felt their case was too weak and frivolous to argue in an open forum. Maybe they feared humiliation or rejection by all.
On the thread I was making some point along the lines of people fall for wierwille’s baloney because they don’t or won’t exercise critical thinking skills.
So - boom - out of the blue - I get a pm from this person, saying they would sort of agree with me - if only I would give a little on who is really at fault in the baloney case - the victim or the Vickster.
..
(side note here - have you ever seen the movie And Justice For All ? Al Pacino plays a lawyer forced to defend a guilty judge…good film - good courtroom drama and comedy!…anyway…)
back to the pm:
This person proceeds to expound on their own great critical thinking skills - due to nature and nurture - he says he was lucky to be raised to be a scientist by a real NASA rocket scientist ...also adding by the time he was in High School he was being groomed to be a physics professor, and he was teaching Einstein’s relativity theory to his HS peers in an after school seminar.
...When he said all that - I realized why he went on and on about preposterous stuff - - on Grease Spot somewhere I had mentioned E=mc2 and pointed out wierwille’s believing equals receiving formula by comparison was half-baked nonsense.
Sometimes I am fascinated by the extent to which a desperate snake oil salesman will go in pushing their unaware wares
but I don’t like to lead someone on, so I cut the conversation short (my side was short 
) saying I find his whole spiel contradictory - because on the one hand he brags about his background and overdeveloped cognitive skills and on the other hand extolls the greatness of wierwille and PFAL.
Basically I told him if he wanted to refute any of my points about how incompetent and dishonest wierwille was - then he should do so on the thread.
Ever notice how some wierwille-fans attempt to gaslight a Grease Spotter by suggesting the person does not know how to properly do analytical thinking…or they are focusing on the sins of others…or they forgot all the good stuff in PFAL.
I can spot someone being condescending from a mile away….you’d think I’d be intimidated when they’re all up close and personal in a pm unabashedly showing me how superior they are to me. But I’m not. I’m somewhat entertained - and the compassionate side of me is always interested in how to relate to someone who seems to be stuck in debilitating mindset that I was in some 36 years ago. It’s not like I really enjoy shooting holes in petrified baloney - I have this silly notion I can somehow help this person out of the hole they dug themselves into.
~ ~ ~ ~
I heard a really cool story on The West Wing - it has to do with having compassion , relating to others and helping a friend work out a problem. You’ve probably heard this somewhere else….Anyway here it goes:
Fred on his way to work is walking across the street - not looking where he’s going and falls into an open manhole to a sewer being repaired.
He’s down there for a long time before he hears someone walking by. He hollers “hey up there - I’m stuck down here - can you help me” . The pedestrian was a doctor - so he takes out his little pad , writes a prescription and tosses the note down to Fred. The doc moves on.
A little later a priest is walking by. Fred heard his footsteps and yells “hey I’m stuck down here - help!”. The priest immediately springs into action and cautiously standing near the manhole the priest says a prayer for Fred and then moves on.
Finally it’s the end of the day - and Fred hears his friend and coworker Joe whistling as he walked by. Joe liked to whistle show tunes. Fred yells up “Joe - Joe it’s me Fred - I’m stuck down here in the manhole - please help!”
Without batting an eye Joe jumps down into the manhole. Fred yells “Joe you idiot - now we’re both stuck down here!”
Joe replies back “yeah but not for long - I’ve fallen down here before and I know the way out”.
What an entertaining thread. Like I don’t understand what absent means.
Edited by T-BoneDo the tighten up
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Because he only can be present in one place at a time (when he was here physically) but now, ahh, he can potentially be in millions of places at the same time. a.k.a. the great mystery "Christ in You, the Hope of Glory."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
BINGO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike, I do appreciate you respecting my wishes to stop PMing me on the matter.
I’m not surprised by your unintended acknowledgement of being crafty…makes me think of the Michael Scott character on the TV show The Office . He’s a boss who has good intentions, but he lacks self-awareness – he usually doesn’t realize he behaves like an a$$hole to others…Man, being a recovering a$$hole myself, I can relate!
Oh, and thanks for admitting to using sneaky manipulative tactics. I rest my case.
~ ~~ ~
btw, Mike
I copy all PMs into a word doc and save them on my laptop and iCloud.
When I say copy – I mean I copy everything exact – both the incoming message and my outgoing response.
~ ~ ~ ~
I feel it would be inappropriate to rehash your PM propaganda on this thread – you’ve derailed it umpteen times as it is – so I have a proposal:
1. Per approval, preferences, and parameters of Grease Spot Café rules and moderators I propose to start a thread in About the Way forum along the lines of
Mike’s mischaracterization of Opposing Views and other deceitful tactics
If mods suggest I start it in Open, some other forum or not at all – I’m cool with that.
But make no mistake I will continue to be vigilant in calling out Mike’s baloney, and will try to shoot the appropriate number of holes in the propaganda without going down a rabbit hole and derailing a thread.
This whole thing might be a stupid idea and a waste of time. I’m cool with that. I waste a lot of my time thinking up stupid stuff anyway.
On the other hand, a thread dedicated to this mischaracterizing issue might help avoid derailment on other threads – especially when it develops into a Mike thread rather than a thread on the absent Christ.
2. For the starter post I will copy and paste the aforementioned unsolicited PM of yours along with my response.
3. Every Grease Spotter can submit comments, replies, brief “quote couplets” from other threads as evidence to show they said blah blah – then Mike mischaracterizes it, and he says you really said or meant to say oh blah dee oh blah dah
4. My intent is not to bash Mike or have everyone pile on and play gotcha. The purpose is to clarify all sides of an argument and debate the ISSUES and not attack the person.
~ ~ ~ ~
Waiting on a response from the moderators
That’s all for now
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
My general rule is to refrain from posting or answering anything Way related on PM.
I do occasionally make exceptions to discuss unrelated matters like musical equipment, gardening, cooking, etc.
But, that's me. Your mileage may vary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
That is good that the commentary of Colossians 1:27, which I have quoted from below, understands that “Christ in you” represents the Spirit of Christ, which according to Romans 8:9, also represents the “Spirit of God”, which also can be called the “Holy Spirit” which we know was first given on the day of Pentecost according to Acts 2:1-4. Jesus Christ before he ascended to heaven to be with God his Father knew about this as read in Acts 1:4-8.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink 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.