Could pfal have been special because vpw was special?
The man was a mediocre student ON HIS BEST DAYS. He was good at plagiarism and at delivering a sermon if someone else wrote it. He had no other skills that would qualify him for special treatment.
On the other hand, he was quite accomplished in sins- he used his office to rape, to molest, to drug, to indulge in his vices of tobacco and alcohol- which eventually killed him. He was also given to wrath, in addition to the plagiarism and simony.
So, not qualified for special treatment, but well-qualified to be INELIGIBLE.
I think you’ve about covered all the likely possibilities.
For those who would like to try this out at home, you might find this Wiki How article helpful.
FYI – if you use the hyperlink below – there are more links of resources…anyway here’s an excerpt:
MATHEMATICS PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS
How to Calculate Probability
Co-authored by Mario Banuelos, PhD
Last Updated: October 1, 2022
Chances are (pun intended) you've encountered probability by now, but what exactly is probability, and how do you calculate it? Probability is the likelihood of a specific event happening, like winning the lottery or rolling a 6 on a die. Finding probability is easy using the probability formula (the number of favorable outcomes divided by the total number of outcomes). In this article, we'll walk you through exactly how to use the probability formula step by step, plus show you some examples of the probability formula in action.
1 Choose an event with mutually exclusive outcomes. Probability can only be calculated when the event whose probability you’re calculating either happens or doesn’t happen. The event and its opposite both cannot occur at the same time. Rolling a 5 on a die, a certain horse winning a race, are examples of mutually exclusive events. Either a 5 is rolled or it isn’t; either the horse wins or it doesn’t.
Example: It would be impossible to calculate the probability of an event phrased as: "Both a 5 and a 6 will come up on a single roll of a die."
~ ~ ~ ~
2. Define all possible events and outcomes that can occur. Let’s say you're trying to find the likelihood of rolling a 3 on a 6-sided die. "Rolling a 3" is the event, and since we know that a 6-sided die can land any one of 6 numbers, the number of outcomes is 6. So, we know that in this case, there are 6 possible events and 1 outcome whose probability we’re interested in calculating. Here are 2 more examples to help you get oriented:
Example 1: What is the likelihood of choosing a day that falls on the weekend when randomly picking a day of the week? "Choosing a day that falls on the weekend" is our event, and the number of outcomes is the total number of days in a week: 7.
Example 2: A jar contains 4 blue marbles, 5 red marbles and 11 white marbles. If a marble is drawn from the jar at random, what is the probability that this marble is red? "Choosing a red marble" is our event, and the number of outcomes is the total number of marbles in the jar, 20.
~ ~ ~ ~
3.Divide the number of events by the number of possible outcomes. This will give us the probability of a single event occurring. In the case of rolling a 3 on a die, the number of events is 1 (there’s only a single 3 on each die), and the number of outcomes is 6. You can also express this relationship as 1 ÷ 6, 1/6, 0.166, or 16.6%. Here's how you find the probability of our remaining examples:
Example 1: What is the likelihood of choosing a day that falls on the weekend when randomly picking a day of the week? The number of events is 2 (since 2 days out of the week are weekends), and the number of outcomes is 7. The probability is 2 ÷ 7 = 2/7. You could also express this as 0.285 or 28.5%.
Example 2: A jar contains 4 blue marbles, 5 red marbles and 11 white marbles. If a marble is drawn from the jar at random, what is the probability that this marble is red? The number of events is 5 (since there are 5 red marbles), and the number of outcomes is 20. The probability is 5 ÷ 20 = 1/4. You could also express this as 0.25 or 25%.
~ ~ ~ ~
4. Add up all possible event likelihoods to make sure they equal 1. The likelihood of all possible events needs to add up to 1 or to 100%. If the likelihood of all possible events doesn't add up to 100%, you've most likely made a mistake because you've left out a possible event. Recheck your math to make sure you’re not omitting any possible outcomes.
For example, the likelihood of rolling a 3 on a 6-sided die is 1/6. But the probability of rolling all five other numbers on a die is also 1/6. 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 = 6/6 , which = 100%.
Note: If you had, for example, forgotten about the number 4 on the dice, adding up the probabilities would only reach 5/6 or 83%, indicating a problem.
From PFAL fifth impression 1976 -- The good ole days so nobody can say this version was not from the glorious "back when".
Quote
Introduction
The Abundant Life
Jesus’ proclamation as recorded in John 10:10 is the foundational Scripture for this book. I am come that they [believers] might have life, and that they might have it more abun-dantly. This verse literally changed my life. My wife and I began in the Christian ministry, plodding ahead with the things of God; but somehow we lacked an abun-dant life. Then one time I was especially alerted when I read from the Word of God that Jesus said He had come to give us life more abundant. I was startled into awareness. As I looked about me at communities where I had served and among the ministers with whom I had worked, the abundant life was frequently not evident. In contrast to these Christian people, I could see that the secular world of non-Christians were manifesting a more abundant life than were members of the Church.
In the introduction wierwille is clearly talking about material posessions as the intrepretation of the abundant life referenced in John 10:10. So right from the start I have to ask the question...did Christ minister, suffer, die, get resurerected, minister, ascend to Heaven and sit down at the right hand of God Almighty so we could get stuff?
How did wierwille recognize that "secular world of non-Christians were manifesting a more abundant life than were members of the Church?" He never really says but we are left to infer that they had more stuff than Christians. Was this a problem for wierwille because he really, really, loved people? Or more likely he was living off donation given by members of his Church and he just wasn't gifted with enough stuff for his satisfaction? That's rhetorical btw.
Quote
If His Word is not reliable here in John 10:10, how can we trust it anywhere else? But, on the other hand, if Jesus told the truth, if He meant what He said and said what He meant in this declaration, then surely there must be keys, sign-posts, to guide us to the understanding and the receiv-ing of this life which is more than abundant. This book, Power for Abundant Living, is one way of showing interested people the abundant life which Jesus Christ lived and which He came to make avail-able to believers as it is revealed in the Word of God. This is a book containing Biblical keys. The con-tents herein do not teach the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21; rather, it is designed to set before the reader the basic keys in the Word of God so that Genesis to Revelation will unfold and so that the abundant life which Jesus Christ came to make available will become evident to those who want to appropriate His abundance to their lives.
So...I am left to conclude from a few paragraphs from the introduction that if the Bible fails on one point the entire thing is rubbish. From that fundamentalist standard then if PFAL is God breathed then it cannot so much as fail on one point in it's agreement with scripture (nor contradict itself)or it becomes rubbish.
So...I am left to conclude from a few paragraphs from the introduction that if the Bible fails on one point the entire thing is rubbish. From that fundamentalist standard then if PFAL is God breathed then it cannot so much as fail on one point in it's agreement with scripture (nor contradict itself)or it becomes rubbish.
So, no 1942 promise means no reason to think pfal is special.
Many dozens, even hundreds,, of reasons exist revealing PFAL is not special to, endorsed by, nor breathed by God. Evidence. Plenty of five-senses and spiritual evidence proving PFAL is NOT special to God.
Now, I used a few prepositions in the above sentences. They could be translated into Greek prepositions. But I'm writing to you in the original English, which is my native tongue, which is NOT glossolalia, until it is.
Bless your little hearts.
Edited by Nathan_Jr The 1942 promise is not bull$hit, it's a lie. There is a difference.
All right, is there any other possibility, some other basis for thinking pfal is Divinely Special?
How about "God Almighty spoke to me personally and told me it was special."
Well,
we go back to the problems already encountered with the 1942 "promise." In this scenario, you have a flawed pfal that in some cases says the OPPOSITE as the Bible, and you have an official endorsement from God Almighty.
Which is more likely to be in error? I'd say the alleged "message from God" has a problem. If you're getting revelation from a God that's speaking error let alone endorsing error, that's a problem. More likely, it's a "god" that doesn't know half the errors that are there- or another "spirit being" who is well aware that they're endorsing error and doing so deliberately in the name of God Almighty. Who would do such a thing? Well, who would stand to benefit endorsing error and is a spirit being?
So, God Almighty will not actually endorse pfal as Divinely Special, and any spirit being who does so isn't from God Almighty- although they may wish to be mistaken for a messenger of God Almighty.
Sooooo 1942. Let’s look at this from another angle. What was going on in the body of Christ at the time.
Well, concerning the gifts of the spirit area, Oral Robert’s was touring the country as a great evangelist leading people into speaking in tongues. NO you say.
Yes he was. The only accounts of that time are the Whiteside book and mrs W. Book. They got rid of the one book from the library. Why? Whitewash of course.
So at one of Orals tent meetings Vic goes up on stage and fraudulently in front of other ministers and Christians fakes speaking in tongues and rides the hoax out the entire meeting.
After this he meets JE Stiles who leads him into tongues. As thanks Vic stole his Holy Spirit book and published it as his own.
If there was a promise it was the promise of high likelihood of future fraud.
No, in this situation it was Oral Robert’s who was the genuine minister, and JE Stiles who educated his flock and published a book with real editors.
It is truly amazing to me that acts that apparent and clearly fraudulent can be widely accepted as from God by a group.
I too did not view easily accessible facts with logic to assess what was going on truly versus the whitewash message that was subliminally revealed.
Nooo my brain said. Just like God told the Egyptians to lie to their slave owners and borrow belongings, that must have been what God wanted Vic to do.
It is truly amazing to me that acts that apparent and clearly fraudulent can be widely accepted as from God by a group.
I too did not view easily accessible facts with logic to assess what was going on truly versus the whitewash message that was subliminally revealed.
Nooo my brain said. Just like God told the Egyptians to lie to their slave owners and borrow belongings, that must have been what God wanted Vic to do.
Same here. I used to rationalize till the cows came home when it came to TWI - especially as I was exposed to the corruption and cover-up. Then I used to tell myself that I would stay way corps until I would be in a position to change TWI. Yah...something comes to mind here....Leopard....change...spots....yeah...not gonna happen.
Ive heard so many others rationalize how vics plaigarism was not actually theft. Think my favorite rationalization is that "plaigarism wasnt an issue then because copyright laws didn't matter to people back then." That was a popular point of view from an offshoot ministry I looked at back in 2008 when I first left.
It's something about cult life that seems to demolish logic and discourage logical thinking, critical thinking, or honest discourse.
Much earlier, the reason I mentioned the Wiki How article on calculating probability had to do with my fuzzy idea of “faith”. To commit to something, I have to be certain something will happen – as they say you can bet on it.(for extra credit I have a related topic below – Gambler’s Fallacy)
Thinking of why I placed my faith in PFAL, it’s along the same lines as OldSkool and Chockfull mentioned – I was young and naïve. When I left TWI in ’86 I was having something like a double whammy crisis of faith – to have questions and doubts about PFAL and wierwille was to have questions and doubts about the Bible and God. That’s probably when my fascination with why I buy into something began.
I recently read a really cool bookThe Case for the Resurrection of Jesus(see extra credit section) – and like the title suggests the authors review evidence, witnesses and probabilities to present arguments and reasons for a phenomenal event. The analytical process in this book got me to see critical thinking as my ever-developing inner-brain-surgeon tasked to remove malignant growths but leave the healthy stuff intact. Physician, heal thyself.
I got to thinking about many of the other phenomenal events mentioned in the Bible and realized there were usually witnesses. It wasn’t just one person claiming he heard God’s voice and got snow upon request as validation.
Referring back to my probability post – how about we check out the Victaw Casino ( not to be confused with another casino ) I’m somewhat of a gambling man – what’s there to bet on? The stumbling dice table looks interesting. What’s the chances of God - on the qt – in other words,there’sno other witnesses – what’s the chances of God asking a pathological liar/thief/plagiarist/drunkard/sexual predator to teach the Word? Hmmmm, well Paul was a persecutor of Christians that’s pretty bad too – so yeah, at this point I guess it’s possible.
Oh…wait…can I examine the dice? If it is indeed possible – then there should be other sides of the dice that have Biblical accounts of God secretly talking one-on-one to a scoundrel. I notice Paul’s conversion is NOT on the dice because there were witnesses on the road to Damascus (those who journeyed with Paul) and in the follow-up of Jesus sending Ananias to restore Paul’s sight…sorry… I hate to quibble over a little thing like witnesses…so… what else you got?
Oh, this other stumbling dice game looks like fun. Victaw claims every time you roll the dice it comes up with the God-breathed PFAL class…
…Again - can I examine the dice? I notice each side of the dice has some tidbit of plagiarized, dubious, and mangled material. This is really puzzling to me – because how do any combinations of the roll add up to the God-breathed PFAL class? It would be like claiming I could roll a 13 with one toss of real dice. Keep in mind the largest number I could roll is a 12 (each of the dice has numbers 1 through 6). Using probability calculations of my first post – or the extra credit hyperlink below on probability of rolling a 7 – the probability of any roll being the God-breathed PFAL class is 0– it cannot happen.
~ ~ ~ ~
I recommend folks avoid the Victaw Casino. Remember the household of wierwille always wins. What does that mean? It does NOT mean that Victaw Casino will “win” everybet, just that return to player rates (RTPs see extra credit link below for online casino guide) are set so that the household of wierwille will profit overall. While at first individual players may believe they’ve won something – household profits depend on loyal paying customers frequenting a thoroughly throughly absolutely completely exceedingly abundantly above redundantly rigged cult-casino because they get free Kool-Aid.
What happens at Victaw Casino doesn’t stay in Victaw Casino. It can spread by offshoots, wierwille-proselytizers and even linger as mental baggage. If you or someone you know has a gambling problem with wierwille/PFAL/TWI/offshoots/wierwille-proselytizers , may I recommend Grease Spot Café.
The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the incorrect belief that, if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past, it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it has otherwise been established that the probability of such events does not depend on what has happened in the past. Such events, having the quality of historical independence, are referred to as statistically independent. The fallacy is commonly associated with gambling, where it may be believed, for example, that the next dice roll is more than usually likely to be six because there have recently been fewer than the expected number of sixes.
The term "Monte Carlo fallacy" originates from the best known example of the phenomenon, which occurred in the Monte Carlo Casino in 1913.
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
So, the 1942 "promise" was completely invalid.
Could pfal have been special because vpw was special?
The man was a mediocre student ON HIS BEST DAYS. He was good at plagiarism and at delivering a sermon if someone else wrote it. He had no other skills that would qualify him for special treatment.
https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24593-vpws-mediocre-intellectual-accomplishments/
https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24587-wierwilles-failed-athletic-accomplishments/
https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25279-was-victor-paul-wierwille-talented-if-so-in-what-was-he-talented/
On the other hand, he was quite accomplished in sins- he used his office to rape, to molest, to drug, to indulge in his vices of tobacco and alcohol- which eventually killed him. He was also given to wrath, in addition to the plagiarism and simony.
So, not qualified for special treatment, but well-qualified to be INELIGIBLE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, so, imagining pfal is special can't be based on the 1942 "promise" that was nothing of the kind.
Imagining pfal is special can't be based on vpw being some special being.
Can it be based on the actual content?
A) The content never claims this standard
B) The content has errors, and has had corrections (to fix previous errors.)
Now, there's no basis left for thinking pfal is Divinely special- other than a dogmatic insistence that pfal is special because pfal is special.
Can one find some good content in pfal and conclude from that , that pfal is Divinely special?
Hardly.
vpw himself said that one could get a good feeling on a Psychiatrist's couch. So, feelings are out as a determinant.
As to "some good content", that's generally true of Christian writings and classes done ALL THE TIME. That would make pfal "AVERAGE."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Having said all that,
is there still room to claim that pfal was Divinely-something'ed?
Sure.
One simply has to ignore all evidence, all good sense, and the internal testimony and standard of the content itself,
but one can do that if one is determined.
Self-delusion is always an option, even when all the evidence is glaring, blatant, and beyond any REASONABLE doubt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25270-was-vpw-a-con-artist-and-only-a-con-artist/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think you’ve about covered all the likely possibilities.
For those who would like to try this out at home, you might find this Wiki How article helpful.
FYI – if you use the hyperlink below – there are more links of resources…anyway here’s an excerpt:
MATHEMATICS PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS
How to Calculate Probability
Co-authored by Mario Banuelos, PhD
Last Updated: October 1, 2022
Chances are (pun intended) you've encountered probability by now, but what exactly is probability, and how do you calculate it? Probability is the likelihood of a specific event happening, like winning the lottery or rolling a 6 on a die. Finding probability is easy using the probability formula (the number of favorable outcomes divided by the total number of outcomes). In this article, we'll walk you through exactly how to use the probability formula step by step, plus show you some examples of the probability formula in action.
1 Choose an event with mutually exclusive outcomes. Probability can only be calculated when the event whose probability you’re calculating either happens or doesn’t happen. The event and its opposite both cannot occur at the same time. Rolling a 5 on a die, a certain horse winning a race, are examples of mutually exclusive events. Either a 5 is rolled or it isn’t; either the horse wins or it doesn’t.
Example: It would be impossible to calculate the probability of an event phrased as: "Both a 5 and a 6 will come up on a single roll of a die."
~ ~ ~ ~
2. Define all possible events and outcomes that can occur. Let’s say you're trying to find the likelihood of rolling a 3 on a 6-sided die. "Rolling a 3" is the event, and since we know that a 6-sided die can land any one of 6 numbers, the number of outcomes is 6. So, we know that in this case, there are 6 possible events and 1 outcome whose probability we’re interested in calculating. Here are 2 more examples to help you get oriented:
Example 1: What is the likelihood of choosing a day that falls on the weekend when randomly picking a day of the week? "Choosing a day that falls on the weekend" is our event, and the number of outcomes is the total number of days in a week: 7.
Example 2: A jar contains 4 blue marbles, 5 red marbles and 11 white marbles. If a marble is drawn from the jar at random, what is the probability that this marble is red? "Choosing a red marble" is our event, and the number of outcomes is the total number of marbles in the jar, 20.
~ ~ ~ ~
3. Divide the number of events by the number of possible outcomes. This will give us the probability of a single event occurring. In the case of rolling a 3 on a die, the number of events is 1 (there’s only a single 3 on each die), and the number of outcomes is 6. You can also express this relationship as 1 ÷ 6, 1/6, 0.166, or 16.6%. Here's how you find the probability of our remaining examples:
Example 1: What is the likelihood of choosing a day that falls on the weekend when randomly picking a day of the week? The number of events is 2 (since 2 days out of the week are weekends), and the number of outcomes is 7. The probability is 2 ÷ 7 = 2/7. You could also express this as 0.285 or 28.5%.
Example 2: A jar contains 4 blue marbles, 5 red marbles and 11 white marbles. If a marble is drawn from the jar at random, what is the probability that this marble is red? The number of events is 5 (since there are 5 red marbles), and the number of outcomes is 20. The probability is 5 ÷ 20 = 1/4. You could also express this as 0.25 or 25%.
~ ~ ~ ~
4. Add up all possible event likelihoods to make sure they equal 1. The likelihood of all possible events needs to add up to 1 or to 100%. If the likelihood of all possible events doesn't add up to 100%, you've most likely made a mistake because you've left out a possible event. Recheck your math to make sure you’re not omitting any possible outcomes.
For example, the likelihood of rolling a 3 on a 6-sided die is 1/6. But the probability of rolling all five other numbers on a die is also 1/6. 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 = 6/6 , which = 100%.
Note: If you had, for example, forgotten about the number 4 on the dice, adding up the probabilities would only reach 5/6 or 83%, indicating a problem.
from: Wiki How: calculating probability
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
From PFAL fifth impression 1976 -- The good ole days so nobody can say this version was not from the glorious "back when".
In the introduction wierwille is clearly talking about material posessions as the intrepretation of the abundant life referenced in John 10:10. So right from the start I have to ask the question...did Christ minister, suffer, die, get resurerected, minister, ascend to Heaven and sit down at the right hand of God Almighty so we could get stuff?
How did wierwille recognize that "secular world of non-Christians were manifesting a more abundant life than were members of the Church?" He never really says but we are left to infer that they had more stuff than Christians. Was this a problem for wierwille because he really, really, loved people? Or more likely he was living off donation given by members of his Church and he just wasn't gifted with enough stuff for his satisfaction? That's rhetorical btw.
So...I am left to conclude from a few paragraphs from the introduction that if the Bible fails on one point the entire thing is rubbish. From that fundamentalist standard then if PFAL is God breathed then it cannot so much as fail on one point in it's agreement with scripture (nor contradict itself)or it becomes rubbish.
Where you at Milke --
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
It's late, my eyes are blurry, and probably my contact lenses need cleaning. I misread the above post at first glance.
I misread "showing" for "snowing." Which seems to fit the context in more than one way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Chance? What about evidence? The overwhelming, manufactured, serpentine evidence that fits a hand like a bloody glove.
Edited by Nathan_JrLet it snow, let it snow, let it snow...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Here's what Mike's doing:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
delete me. Thx.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
What if we change the name of the thread to
The Absent Beetlejuice
and move it to doctrinal
...cue the Betamax tape – it’s showtime
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Cause someone would say Beetlegeuse Beetlegeuse Beetlegeuse and BAM - it would pop back up in About the Way....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
now you owe me one for setting you up
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Gotcha covered...no worries....lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
You got me good too. I laughed so hard on the absent Beetlejuice my sides hurt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Many dozens, even hundreds,, of reasons exist revealing PFAL is not special to, endorsed by, nor breathed by God. Evidence. Plenty of five-senses and spiritual evidence proving PFAL is NOT special to God.
Now, I used a few prepositions in the above sentences. They could be translated into Greek prepositions. But I'm writing to you in the original English, which is my native tongue, which is NOT glossolalia, until it is.
Bless your little hearts.
Edited by Nathan_JrThe 1942 promise is not bull$hit, it's a lie. There is a difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
We really don't need to name posters who are not participating in this thread. They're not participating in this thread, and we're better than that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
All right, is there any other possibility, some other basis for thinking pfal is Divinely Special?
How about "God Almighty spoke to me personally and told me it was special."
Well,
we go back to the problems already encountered with the 1942 "promise." In this scenario, you have a flawed pfal that in some cases says the OPPOSITE as the Bible, and you have an official endorsement from God Almighty.
Which is more likely to be in error? I'd say the alleged "message from God" has a problem. If you're getting revelation from a God that's speaking error let alone endorsing error, that's a problem. More likely, it's a "god" that doesn't know half the errors that are there- or another "spirit being" who is well aware that they're endorsing error and doing so deliberately in the name of God Almighty. Who would do such a thing? Well, who would stand to benefit endorsing error and is a spirit being?
So, God Almighty will not actually endorse pfal as Divinely Special, and any spirit being who does so isn't from God Almighty- although they may wish to be mistaken for a messenger of God Almighty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yep, fair enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Sooooo 1942. Let’s look at this from another angle. What was going on in the body of Christ at the time.
Well, concerning the gifts of the spirit area, Oral Robert’s was touring the country as a great evangelist leading people into speaking in tongues. NO you say.
Yes he was. The only accounts of that time are the Whiteside book and mrs W. Book. They got rid of the one book from the library. Why? Whitewash of course.
So at one of Orals tent meetings Vic goes up on stage and fraudulently in front of other ministers and Christians fakes speaking in tongues and rides the hoax out the entire meeting.
After this he meets JE Stiles who leads him into tongues. As thanks Vic stole his Holy Spirit book and published it as his own.
If there was a promise it was the promise of high likelihood of future fraud.
No, in this situation it was Oral Robert’s who was the genuine minister, and JE Stiles who educated his flock and published a book with real editors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
It is truly amazing to me that acts that apparent and clearly fraudulent can be widely accepted as from God by a group.
I too did not view easily accessible facts with logic to assess what was going on truly versus the whitewash message that was subliminally revealed.
Nooo my brain said. Just like God told the Egyptians to lie to their slave owners and borrow belongings, that must have been what God wanted Vic to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yes my twenty-something year old brain accepted many things as logic that were feel good yet sketchy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Same here. I used to rationalize till the cows came home when it came to TWI - especially as I was exposed to the corruption and cover-up. Then I used to tell myself that I would stay way corps until I would be in a position to change TWI. Yah...something comes to mind here....Leopard....change...spots....yeah...not gonna happen.
Ive heard so many others rationalize how vics plaigarism was not actually theft. Think my favorite rationalization is that "plaigarism wasnt an issue then because copyright laws didn't matter to people back then." That was a popular point of view from an offshoot ministry I looked at back in 2008 when I first left.
It's something about cult life that seems to demolish logic and discourage logical thinking, critical thinking, or honest discourse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Much earlier, the reason I mentioned the Wiki How article on calculating probability had to do with my fuzzy idea of “faith”. To commit to something, I have to be certain something will happen – as they say you can bet on it. (for extra credit I have a related topic below – Gambler’s Fallacy)
Thinking of why I placed my faith in PFAL, it’s along the same lines as OldSkool and Chockfull mentioned – I was young and naïve. When I left TWI in ’86 I was having something like a double whammy crisis of faith – to have questions and doubts about PFAL and wierwille was to have questions and doubts about the Bible and God. That’s probably when my fascination with why I buy into something began.
I recently read a really cool book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (see extra credit section
) – and like the title suggests the authors review evidence, witnesses and probabilities to present arguments and reasons for a phenomenal event. The analytical process in this book got me to see critical thinking as my ever-developing inner-brain-surgeon tasked to remove malignant growths but leave the healthy stuff intact. Physician, heal thyself. 
I got to thinking about many of the other phenomenal events mentioned in the Bible and realized there were usually witnesses. It wasn’t just one person claiming he heard God’s voice and got snow upon request as validation.
Referring back to my probability post – how about we check out the Victaw Casino ( not to be confused with another casino
) I’m somewhat of a gambling man – what’s there to bet on? The stumbling dice table looks interesting. What’s the chances of God - on the qt – in other words, there’s no other witnesses – what’s the chances of God asking a pathological liar/thief/plagiarist/drunkard/sexual predator to teach the Word? Hmmmm, well Paul was a persecutor of Christians that’s pretty bad too – so yeah, at this point I guess it’s possible.
Oh…wait…can I examine the dice? If it is indeed possible – then there should be other sides of the dice that have Biblical accounts of God secretly talking one-on-one to a scoundrel. I notice Paul’s conversion is NOT on the dice because there were witnesses on the road to Damascus (those who journeyed with Paul) and in the follow-up of Jesus sending Ananias to restore Paul’s sight…sorry… I hate to quibble over a little thing like witnesses…so… what else you got?
Oh, this other stumbling dice game looks like fun. Victaw claims every time you roll the dice it comes up with the God-breathed PFAL class…
…Again - can I examine the dice? I notice each side of the dice has some tidbit of plagiarized, dubious, and mangled material. This is really puzzling to me – because how do any combinations of the roll add up to the God-breathed PFAL class? It would be like claiming I could roll a 13 with one toss of real dice. Keep in mind the largest number I could roll is a 12 (each of the dice has numbers 1 through 6). Using probability calculations of my first post – or the extra credit hyperlink below on probability of rolling a 7 – the probability of any roll being the God-breathed PFAL class is 0 – it cannot happen.
~ ~ ~ ~
I recommend folks avoid the Victaw Casino. Remember the household of wierwille always wins. What does that mean? It does NOT mean that Victaw Casino will “win” every bet, just that return to player rates (RTPs see extra credit link below for online casino guide ) are set so that the household of wierwille will profit overall. While at first individual players may believe they’ve won something – household profits depend on loyal paying customers frequenting a thoroughly throughly absolutely completely exceedingly abundantly above redundantly rigged cult-casino because they get free Kool-Aid.
What happens at Victaw Casino doesn’t stay in Victaw Casino. It can spread by offshoots, wierwille-proselytizers and even linger as mental baggage. If you or someone you know has a gambling problem with wierwille/PFAL/TWI/offshoots/ wierwille-proselytizers , may I recommend Grease Spot Café.
~ ~ ~ ~
Extra credit section
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona
The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the incorrect belief that, if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past, it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it has otherwise been established that the probability of such events does not depend on what has happened in the past. Such events, having the quality of historical independence, are referred to as statistically independent. The fallacy is commonly associated with gambling, where it may be believed, for example, that the next dice roll is more than usually likely to be six because there have recently been fewer than the expected number of sixes.
The term "Monte Carlo fallacy" originates from the best known example of the phenomenon, which occurred in the Monte Carlo Casino in 1913.
From: Wikipedia: Gambler’s fallacy
Math Answers - what's the probability of rolling a 7 with two dice?
online casinos - guide - the house always wins
Edited by T-Bonecome on, Grease Spot – daddy needs a new pair of shoes!
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.