Just for the record, if wierwille’s ‘great principle’is to be taken as a summation of the pattern in the Bible – then the postulate is wrong!
summation = the process of adding all things together… wierwille’s ‘great principle’ does NOT take into account all Scripture.There are numerous Scriptures that defy wierwille’s ‘great principle’– beginning with the most obvious event in Genesis 3 - God talking to Adam and EveAFTER the Fall !!!!!
If wierwille’s ‘great principle’ was designed to help students read the Bible with clear understanding – then wierwille’s ‘great principle’ is counterproductive, because it superimposes on certain passages a false description of how God works…The gaps in logic of God who is Spirit can only speak to what he is which is spirit and he teaches his creation in you & etc... not only overcomplicates and confuses a process – it also misrepresents how God works.
Claiming wierwille’s ‘great principle’ was tohelp explain the established doctrine in the ancient scriptures is a false assertion for a couple of reasons:
1.There is no such thing as the established doctrine of the Bible – what group or organization was in charge of doing that? At best one can say the Bible is traditionally recognized as an ancient religious & sacred text.
2.Doctrine is a set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group; given the wide array of interpretations of the Bible it seems cautious to allow for freedom of thought and duty to one’s conscience to permit alternative viewpoints instead of being closedminded on one’s own ‘pet doctrine’.
To claim that the ‘great principle’wasprovided by God to us modern people, to help us understand better the ancient Biblical doctrine – is a deceptive way of imbuing it with divine authority – of which it has NONE…that’s why I’ve labeled it wierwille’s ‘great principle’ in this post - becauseit is based on his influence and we all know he was incompetent, a pathological liar, unabashed plagiarist, misogynistic, sexual predator, chain-smoking, drunkard, money-grubbing, megalomaniac, voracious wolf in sheep's clothing who had delusions of grandeur.
If I remember correctly from Babylon Mystery Religion the Pope's hat is a representation of a fish and Christian's use fish. This came from the Phonecian God Dagon. A fishy god mentioned somewhere in the Bible, maybe.
So a fish god sent the Babel fish because he can only communicate to that which he is. The Babel fish then communicates to your mind.
If I remember correctly from Babylon Mystery Religion the Pope's hat is a representation of a fish and Christian's use fish. This came from the Phonecian God Dagon. A fishy god mentioned somewhere in the Bible, maybe.
So a fish god sent the Babel fish because he can only communicate to that which he is. The Babel fish then communicates to your mind.
So, cman, when you refer to the "body soul spirit bs teachings" I figure you may have drifted a little, yourself. If you want to see some of the many verses that document vast differences between spirit and flesh, we could start looking in the Gospels to see how Jesus divided spirit and flesh.
Drifted? I power boated out of that bs!
Funny you bring up "flesh". This is what was used to justify sinning repeatedly. Cause you know you can't sin in the spirit, just in the flesh and God don't care about that don't you know.
Funny you bring up "flesh". This is what was used to justify sinning repeatedly. Cause you know you can't sin in the spirit, just in the flesh and God don't care about that don't you know.
Mistletoe Mike again is acting as if he is the only standard for truth and understanding. Isn't that special? Further demonstration of his 1) unlearned arrogance; 2) being a GSC parasite.
Gosh Mike, the fact you started a thread doesn't make you less of a parasite.
We saw from John chapter four verse twenty-four that God is what? Spirit. God is Spirit.
God being Spirit can only speak to what He is.
God cannot speak to the natural human mind.
This is why the Word could not come by the will of man,
because the will of man is in the category of the natural realm.
God being Spirit can only speak to what He is, spirit.
Like things in the natural realm can be known via the five senses.
The natural senses of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. Things in the natural world can be known by the five senses, but God is Spirit.
God being Spirit can only speak to what He is, which is Spirit.
God cannot speak to your brain cells.
God cannot speak to your mind.
God can only speak to what He is.
You see this is a law. God never oversteps His laws,
God never breaks any laws.
God being Spirit can only speak to what He is, Spirit.
This is why the spirit of God had to be on all the holy men of God who spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit. The spirit of God had to be upon these men otherwise they could never have received revelation as Paul declared in Galatians that he received it by revelation. They could not have received it by revelation if they had not had the spirit of God on them.
more bs, I mean like how many lies are in this section.
Mike on another thread is determined that we should see him as "empathetic." Right. Really.
What's empathy?
Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference, that is, the capacity to place oneself in another's position.[1] Definitions of empathy encompass a broad range of social, cognitive, and emotional processes primarily concerned with understanding others (and others' emotions in particular). Types of empathy include cognitive empathy, emotional (or affective) empathy, somatic empathy, and spiritual empathy.[2][3][4][Wikipedia]
(In nice big font, Mike, so that you can't miss it.) The article is lengthy, so it may take you some time to read, but you may learn quite a lot from it.
Here's another much shorter article. Please read it, Mike. And carefully watch the video at the end (and learn from it).
Because Mike persists in shrieking about "Nazi Corps" without ever thinking about how much some people have given to enter the Corps program; what it has cost them physically, emotionally, in relationships; in other opportunities. Without doubt everyone tried their best to do the program as directed. Unfortunately, that included being stomped on from great height, repeatedly, for the most minor infractions - and for that same behaviour to be mimicked by trainees (in rez Corps). The joy of service and the enthusiasm for service was crushed nearly out of existence, for many of the "Nazi Corps." And who "Nazi'd" them? The man who set up the program. So in condemning "Nazi Corps" Mike is, in effect, condemning VPW, the man who had empathy for none and understood none who had empathy for others.
Now he has a different target in his sights: Charlene. Charlene, who as a young woman, heard the word and received it with joy. It filled her heart with enthusiasm and she wanted more and more of it. In Mikeology, she "snapped." Because she didn't hang around for 20 years "thinking about it" before she made a decision to follow the Lord (except, unfortunately, it wasn't the Lord but the Liar that she followed). Mike condemns her for this. She was too hasty. I wonder what he knows of her circumstances, that made this choice attractive to her? Where's his empathy for Charlene? Did I miss something?
Mike, how long did the first disciples take before they joined Jesus on his mission? Did they take 20 years? Or did they hear, make a quick decision, and leave their nets and follow him? Gave up their businesses and their previous lives, and went with someone they'd come to trust because he spoke of the God they longed to know? Did they "snap," too?
What about Lydia in Acts 16? She immediately received the word and set about witnessing to others, her whole household, and wanted Paul to stay with her. Did she "snap"? Paul writes very well of her later and she did much to fund his ministry.
What about the jailor that Paul and Silas witnessed to when they were falsely imprisoned? Verse 34 tells us "The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household." Did the jailor "snap"?
There are many records in the book of Acts where it appears people were able to make a quick and lifechanging decision to follow the Lord.
Mike, just because you can't make a quick decision, doesn't mean that you have any right to condemn those who did.
And just because you have zero empathy for anyone else, doesn't give you any right to condemn or criticise anyone else. Go walk in someone else's shoes for days, weeks, months, or even 20 years. Come back and tell us if you learned anything.
On 12/23/2022 at 8:22 AM, Twinky said:
VPW put his name to all the collaterals, whether or not anyone else contributed to them. It's his name on all the books. No-one else has attribution.
Ps 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, And give thanks unto thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Or, in the MikeBible:
Mike will worship towards the VPW auditorium, and give thanks unto VPW's name for his {???} and for his "truth": For Mike has magnified VPW's word above all VPW's name.
And that's not idolizing VPW?
On 1/7/2023 at 4:51 PM, Bolshevik said:
One way to face reality is to let oneself experience the pain. Then insight and growth can possibly happen.
Or one can distort reality through a variety of means, avoiding the pain.
Empathy is more than being sympathetic. Being sympathetic is feeling others’ pain, but not necessarily giving comfort. Empathy is the ability to feel the distress of others and to give them comfort.
The collaterals often promoted disconnecting from reality. Right off the top of my head I think of wierwille’s Studies in Human Suffering – Job, from victim to victor…what a distortion of reality! In wierwille-theology, Job’s problem was fear – his lack of believing – that allowed the devil to harm his life and family – and when you take the Advanced Class wierwille gets into some next level bull$hit of demonology.
To counter wierwille’s fundamentalism / spiritualism / Gnosticism, and his promoting the bogus law of believing- I suggest looking to other sources – experts in the biblical languages and cultures…some sources mentioned onanother thread demystify the book of Job – it’s the age-old battle humankind wages with the pain, misery, and discomforts of life. Some things we can resolve – and with some things all we can do is acquiesce.
Central to the book of Job is the question of human suffering – especially why people who are seemingly innocent suffer, which in turn raises the question about the righteousness of a loving God. Job deals with the question of retribution, the popular theology that the righteous prosper but the wicked suffer – this attempts to vindicate God – theodicy.
Wisdom accounts of innocent suffering are found across the ancient Near East – which shows a universal concern from olden times and is still a contemporary issue...Empathy is humankind's ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
No matter how you slice it and dice it - life is not perfect...there is pain and suffering...hardships...when folks pin their hopes and dreams on the law of believing they're really just hiding their heads in the sand.
I believe God created us as social creatures - social ties help us thrive...the spiritual elitism promoted by wierwille is anathema to social connectedness that promotes happiness, physical health, mental health and general well-being.
~ ~ ~ ~
wierwille’s collateralsare devious in the way they undermine one’s faith in Jesus Christ and impair one’s ability to connect with others or to properly deal with reality...wierwille ideology pushes all-or-nothing thinking...one has only 2 options: either it's wierwille's way or the highway...
Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia in the field of psychology is the perception of contradictory information, and the mental toll of it. PFAL claims what it teaches will increase one's prosperity...12 years of my involvement in running PFAL classes and financially supporting TWI had put a stranglehold on my finances and career...
Cognitive dissonance is typically experienced as psychological stress...It's been my experience with the TWI-mindset that I actually brought on undue stress because the ideas and principles taught in PFAL / the collaterals did nothing to resolve the issue.
The credibility ofwierwille’s collaterals relies mostly on the supposed 1942 ‘promise of God’ assigning wierwille the task of ‘accurizing’ the works of others. Imagine God giving wierwille the green light to plagiarize the works of others and furthermore God would help him tie it altogether and fit with the Bible perfectly – resulting in him teaching us “The Word” like it hasn’t been known since the 1st century.
Reviewing wierwille’s collaterals in a normal frame of mind some 37 years after forsaking a cultic-mindset, I find wierwille’s collaterals to be a discombobulated hot mess – the manifesto of a very delusional man.
The incongruity of the whole 1942 promise should be alarming to any Christian…any serious student of the Bible!
Why do I say that?
Well…think about it…doesn’t it seem odd…out of character…even creepy and strange that a Holy benevolent God, biblically famous for His justice, faithfulness, righteousness, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, sovereignty, etc., would choose wierwille for some special earth-shattering assignment that would have a profound impact on the future of Christianity.
Even if wierwille was clean as a whistle in 1942 and had no ill will – God’s choice of him in 1942 would suggest a number of disturbing-faith-shattering ideas – such as the following – and please note these are just a FEWof the many aberrant alternate possibilities in the spacetime continuum if the 1942 promise/God speaking audibly to wierwille really happened:
1.God doesn’t know the future – that wierwille would develop into a misogynistic pathological liar, malignant narcissist, sexual predator, a thieving flagrant plagiarist, megalomaniac, money-grubbing, chain-smoking, drunkard, abusive, calloused and delusional cult-leader.
2.God does know the future – He knew that wierwille would develop into a misogynistic pathological liar, malignant narcissist, sexual predator, a thieving flagrant plagiarist, megalomaniac, money-grubbing, chain-smoking, drunkard, abusive, calloused and delusional cult-leader – and God was okay with that...The 10 commandmentssuggestions are optional.
3.True Christianity was lost after the 1st century until a misogynistic pathological liar, malignant narcissist, sexual predator, a thieving flagrant plagiarist, megalomaniac, money-grubbing, chain-smoking, drunkard, abusive, calloused and delusional cult-leader like wierwille came along to get Christianity back on track.
4.What Jesus Christ did way back when was important – but that was then – and this is now “The Word takes the place of the absent Christ.”...if you can't comprehend that - just stick around - keep reading the collaterals, because what wierwille SAID is moreimportant now.
5. God doesn’t care about the harm and pain wierwille caused...and God doesn't care about the shame wierwille brought to the name of Jesus Christ...and God doesn’t even care about the pain you have – the main thing is that we parrot wierwille’s pious platitudes…it’s the ABCs of Christianity: Always Be reading the Collaterals.
6. There really were 4 crucified with Jesus Christ.
7. The Bible really does interpret itself.
~ ~ ~ ~
When one removes the footing of wierwille’s authority and his logical fallacies/eclectic interpolations and his twisting of Scripture, wierwille’s dubious doctrines are de-feeted.
The subterfuge of wierwille’s collateralsis a pretentious connection to reality. They are designed to keep one in mental busywork – it keeps one intellectually and emotionally occupied…and since most of it is nonsense and wishful thinking, there develops a repetitive cycle of frustration and a renewed commitment to making it work... 'rinse and repeat'…it’s predictable...monotonous…a repetition of thought processes and actions.
~ ~ ~ ~
It’s beenshared elsewherethat much of wierwille’s collaterals is dogmatic fundamentalismat its best - a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible. It is a mutant subset of a broader counter-culture movement, that used central doctrinal affirmations as a means of defining cultural boundaries. Certain major doctrines like the absolute literal authority of Scripture became barriers to alienate secular culture and give fundamentalists a sense of identity and purpose. A siege mentality -a defensive or paranoid attitude based on the belief that others are hostile toward one, became characteristic of the movement. This military-like-blockade-mindsetis amplified by a devotion to wierwille’s collaterals…blockades and barriers – real or imagined impede connections and empathy.
Sociologically, Fundamentalism - Wikipediais a somewhat reactionary or unreceptive counter-cultural movement – whereas Evangelicalism - Wikipediais a cultural movement focused on relevance and has a loose basis for self-definition.The element of irrationalism often associated with fundamentalism is lacking in evangelicalism which has produced significant writings in areas of the philosophy of religion and apologetics.
New Living Translation You keep track of all my sorrows. You have collected all my tears in your bottle. You have recorded each one in your book…Psalm 56:8
Amplified Bible For He knows our [mortal] frame; He remembers that we are [merely] dust…Psalm 103:14
New International Version When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd…Matthew 9:36
Contemporary English Version Jesus understands every weakness of ours, because he was tempted in every way that we are. But he did not sin!…Hebrews 4:15
Contemporary English Version Finally, all of you should agree and have concern and love for each other. You should also be kind and humble…I Peter 3:8
Amplified Bible Rejoice with those who rejoice [sharing others’ joy], and weep with those who weep [sharing others’ grief]…Romans 12:15
And just because you [Mistletoe Mike (not T-Bone's or anyone else besides my, characterization of the GSC parasite)] have zero empathy for anyone else, doesn't give you any right to condemn or criticise anyone else. Go walk in someone else's shoes for days, weeks, months, or even 20 years. Come back [AFTERWARD] and tell us if you learned anything.
For more clarification, T-Bone had quoted Twinky and I quoted where T-Bone had done so.
I have my objections to attaching much meaning to debates. That they influence people who watch them is obvious, but that a debate is able to discover or derive truth is very doubtful to me. There are all sorts of limitations to how far a debate involving a complex topic can go.
But this video is not aiming after something so subtle as ultimate truth. It aims at spotting invalid tactics, only.
Four tactics: Twister, Wrangler, Dodger, and Liar. How many of them can we spot here?
I saw the Wrangler tactic used on me in recent weeks by Nathan_JR, then by you, Twinkie, and then by Charity. Three in a row.
I was asked how I felt about God, empathy, and fellowship with Jesus by these folks, respectively. Each time, what I offered was just not enough.
I spotted the pattern after Twinky and Nathan's wrangle, so when Charity set me up for a third time I asked her if she was going to do the same wrangle, before I answered to her setup. My question sailed right over her head, and she immediately found my answer falling short.
The Twisters here are abundant. I am always hit with "So, Mike, that means you must hold the following ridiculous idea as true..." when never such an implication is even close to my position.
The Dodger is probably what Rocky was latching onto, trying to apply the video to me.
There are proper dodges and there are improper dodges.
But this video is only talking about dodging that happens WITHIN a formal debate.
I dodge the entire debate at times, like Raf's thread "Actual Errors in PFAL..." because I disagree with the premise and methods of the debaters. Dodging the entire debate can be a totally honest move.
It is in ENTERING the debate, with the implied promise of willingness to conform to the debate's logical discoveries, that the tactic of dodging is properly seen as dishonest.
The fourth category, the Liar, is a bit more extreme, but nonetheless, I see that being attempted here once in a while.
I saw the Wrangler tactic used on me in recent weeks by Nathan_JR, then by you, Twinkie, and then by Charity. Three in a row.
1. I am not using "tactics." I merely say what I think. I speak plainly, not in riddles or with hidden or special meanings - unlike you, Mike.
2. You could try paying attention. My handle is TWINKY with a Y. How many times have you seen the name? You managed to spell it correctly the second time. Attention to detail is something TWI drums into its followers. How could you miss that?
3. When the blindly obvious is ignored or overlooked, it makes one wonder what other less obvious things are overlooked or ignored. Wonder how trustworthy the person overlooking things really is.
I have my objections to attaching much meaning to debates. That they influence people who watch them is obvious, but that a debate is able to discover or derive truth is very doubtful to me. There are all sorts of limitations to how far a debate involving a complex topic can go.
But this video is not aiming after something so subtle as ultimate truth. It aims at spotting invalid tactics, only.
Four tactics: Twister, Wrangler, Dodger, and Liar. How many of them can we spot here?
I saw the Wrangler tactic used on me in recent weeks by Nathan_JR, then by you, Twinkie, and then by Charity. Three in a row.
I was asked how I felt about God, empathy, and fellowship with Jesus by these folks, respectively. Each time, what I offered was just not enough.
I spotted the pattern after Twinky and Nathan's wrangle, so when Charity set me up for a third time I asked her if she was going to do the same wrangle, before I answered to her setup. My question sailed right over her head, and she immediately found my answer falling short.
The Twisters here are abundant. I am always hit with "So, Mike, that means you must hold the following ridiculous idea as true..." when never such an implication is even close to my position.
The Dodger is probably what Rocky was latching onto, trying to apply the video to me.
There are proper dodges and there are improper dodges.
But this video is only talking about dodging that happens WITHIN a formal debate.
I dodge the entire debate at times, like Raf's thread "Actual Errors in PFAL..." because I disagree with the premise and methods of the debaters. Dodging the entire debate can be a totally honest move.
It is in ENTERING the debate, with the implied promise of willingness to conform to the debate's logical discoveries, that the tactic of dodging is properly seen as dishonest.
The fourth category, the Liar, is a bit more extreme, but nonetheless, I see that being attempted here once in a while.
And we see a 5th tactic taken here not mentioned by the national debate winner investigating the political battle in presidential election past between the Orange Jesus and the Anti Christ.
5. The Pee Wee Herman
”I know you are but what am I”
Here Mike takes every single criticism against himself and turns it into what other people are doing to him. This tactic is used to elicit sympathy from some unnamed audience who doesn’t post here and can barely stand reading anything here.
Well Mike, you must be the woman who kept confessing her kid was going to die. You just don’t have enough beeee leeving to keep from getting attacked.
Either that or you and a small soap dish both can read a room equally well.
Understanding death of the spirit as figurative seems more reasonable and appropriate in the context of evangelizing and even Christian counseling. Spiritual death is separation from God...think about that in the context of the second death mentioned in Scripture - that's eternal separation from God! Makes more sense to think of it this way - when we were saved our "dead spirit" - our separation from God was healed! We are reconciled back to God! Not by the introduction of something new - but by a reawakening !
Your whole post is an interesting walk-through idea about death and spirit. I don't think the spirit can be killed or die, but it can be sleeping and then awakened.
My friend, sirguessalot, could say more about the subjects. I have experienced a little of it, or a lot, but can't find the words yet.
If one is dead then there needs to be a birth or awakening, like a seed in the ground, goes in without life and sprouts into life.
Your whole post is an interesting walk-through idea about death and spirit. I don't think the spirit can be killed or die, but it can be sleeping and then awakened.
My friend, sirguessalot, could say more about the subjects. I have experienced a little of it, or a lot, but can't find the words yet.
If one is dead then there needs to be a birth or awakening, like a seed in the ground, goes in without life and sprouts into life.
I have a hard time finding the right words too - or even trying to articulate some of this stuff...still exploring
I miss Sirguessalot ! He always brought some great insight and thought-provoking ideas to Grease Spot.
I have my objections to attaching much meaning to debates. That they influence people who watch them is obvious, but that a debate is able to discover or derive truth is very doubtful to me. There are all sorts of limitations to how far a debate involving a complex topic can go.
But this video is not aiming after something so subtle as ultimate truth. It aims at spotting invalid tactics, only.
Four tactics: Twister, Wrangler, Dodger, and Liar. How many of them can we spot here?
I saw the Wrangler tactic used on me in recent weeks by Nathan_JR, then by you, Twinkie, and then by Charity. Three in a row.
I was asked how I felt about God, empathy, and fellowship with Jesus by these folks, respectively. Each time, what I offered was just not enough.
I spotted the pattern after Twinky and Nathan's wrangle, so when Charity set me up for a third time I asked her if she was going to do the same wrangle, before I answered to her setup. My question sailed right over her head, and she immediately found my answer falling short.
The Twisters here are abundant. I am always hit with "So, Mike, that means you must hold the following ridiculous idea as true..." when never such an implication is even close to my position.
The Dodger is probably what Rocky was latching onto, trying to apply the video to me.
There are proper dodges and there are improper dodges.
But this video is only talking about dodging that happens WITHIN a formal debate.
I dodge the entire debate at times, like Raf's thread "Actual Errors in PFAL..." because I disagree with the premise and methods of the debaters. Dodging the entire debate can be a totally honest move.
It is in ENTERING the debate, with the implied promise of willingness to conform to the debate's logical discoveries, that the tactic of dodging is properly seen as dishonest.
The fourth category, the Liar, is a bit more extreme, but nonetheless, I see that being attempted here once in a while.
Sorry, this post is long but mostly because of the footnotes below (which can be ignored), but I am trying to be thorough and accurate.
You wrote: I spotted the pattern after Twinky and Nathan's wrangle, so when Charity set me up for a third time I asked her if she was going to do the same wrangle, before I answered to her setup.My question sailed right over her head…
My corrections Mike:
·You did notask me that question at all. You asked me, “Why do you ask, Charity?” in response to 1my reply to you on a different thread.
·Your question did not sail right over my head.2I answered it.
·I did not set you up and my questions were not a setup – this idea was in your head - it was not in my heart. You would have realized this if you had read the 3beginning of my post.Instead you sent me a 4snarky response to it.
You wrote: …and she immediately found my answer falling short.
Then WHYdo you go back and forth for pages about "intellectual" topics (e.g., the "go-cart" analogy) when the posters obviously find your answers “falling short.”I did get personal in my reply to your answers because the topic was about having a personal relationship with Christ, our Lord and Savior. I suggest you use the disclaimer "Do not reply!" in the future if you want to end a topic prematurely.
1I wrote, “It would be nice to hear you talk more about the "ever present Christ, spiritually within us."What does this mean to you?Other than being inside us, how do you fellowship with Christ throughout the day?
2I am interested in hearing about Christ in your life without any mention of the collaterals.
3Hi, my replies are in italics. I am asking Christ for guidance as I respond. Looking back on what you wrote Mike, I see a pattern of you saying and doing things that sound and look godly but without a sense of warmth, affection, comfort or friendliness in how you speak about Christ in your life. You will see what I mean when/if you read my replies.
It makes me think about my relationships with others throughout my life. Except for my very best friend in childhood, I kept an emotional distance from others. Even though my mother took good care of me, I never experienced a close relationship with her (except at her death bed) because most of her true self was oppressed because of my father's treatment of her. My relationship with my father was a desperate need for his love and trying to please him enough so that he would stop drinking (i.e., codependent). Only my children could opened up my heart to feel, give and receive such warmth.
I have no idea if this describes any part of your life, but if it does, I can honestly say that within the past few months from being on GSC, my relationship with God and Christ has begun to change from an intellectual knowledge of them to a personal one.
4How'd I do on that, not mentioning the collaterals, ma'am?
I haven't gone back to read my post yet [the one I sent you], so I'm hearing TV game show music in my head as I prepare to go read it.
If you were my English Comp. 101 professor, and considering the brevity of my requested essay, what grade would you give me?
Try to keep that grade separate from the grade you'd give me as a Theology professor would, reading the same mini essay.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
155
52
146
54
Popular Days
Dec 23
92
Dec 26
75
Dec 24
70
Jan 30
68
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 155 posts
chockfull 52 posts
OldSkool 146 posts
Nathan_Jr 54 posts
Popular Days
Dec 23 2022
92 posts
Dec 26 2022
75 posts
Dec 24 2022
70 posts
Jan 30 2023
68 posts
Popular Posts
outandabout
I copied the emotion graph and wanted to comment on how it made me aware of the wide range of emotions we as humans are capable of. A little off topic but looking at it reminds me that we were taught
WordWolf
It's also interesting to see what happened and what did NOT happen. We all know that vpw never went to his congregation and confessed his sins against them. That would have been required after havi
chockfull
I think when VPW taught that sincerity is no guarantee for the truth that is what they call a “Freudian slip”.
Posted Images
T-Bone
Just for the record, if wierwille’s ‘great principle’ is to be taken as a summation of the pattern in the Bible – then the postulate is wrong!
summation = the process of adding all things together… wierwille’s ‘great principle’ does NOT take into account all Scripture. There are numerous Scriptures that defy wierwille’s ‘great principle’ – beginning with the most obvious event in Genesis 3 - God talking to Adam and Eve AFTER the Fall !!!!!
If wierwille’s ‘great principle’ was designed to help students read the Bible with clear understanding – then wierwille’s ‘great principle’ is counterproductive, because it superimposes on certain passages a false description of how God works…The gaps in logic of God who is Spirit can only speak to what he is which is spirit and he teaches his creation in you & etc... not only overcomplicates and confuses a process – it also misrepresents how God works.
Claiming wierwille’s ‘great principle’ was to help explain the established doctrine in the ancient scriptures is a false assertion for a couple of reasons:
1. There is no such thing as the established doctrine of the Bible – what group or organization was in charge of doing that? At best one can say the Bible is traditionally recognized as an ancient religious & sacred text.
2. Doctrine is a set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group; given the wide array of interpretations of the Bible it seems cautious to allow for freedom of thought and duty to one’s conscience to permit alternative viewpoints instead of being closedminded on one’s own ‘pet doctrine’.
To claim that the ‘great principle’ was provided by God to us modern people, to help us understand better the ancient Biblical doctrine – is a deceptive way of imbuing it with divine authority – of which it has NONE…that’s why I’ve labeled it wierwille’s ‘great principle’ in this post - because it is based on his influence and we all know he was incompetent, a pathological liar, unabashed plagiarist, misogynistic, sexual predator, chain-smoking, drunkard, money-grubbing, megalomaniac, voracious wolf in sheep's clothing who had delusions of grandeur.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If I remember correctly from Babylon Mystery Religion the Pope's hat is a representation of a fish and Christian's use fish. This came from the Phonecian God Dagon. A fishy god mentioned somewhere in the Bible, maybe.
So a fish god sent the Babel fish because he can only communicate to that which he is. The Babel fish then communicates to your mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Drifted? I power boated out of that bs!
Funny you bring up "flesh". This is what was used to justify sinning repeatedly. Cause you know you can't sin in the spirit, just in the flesh and God don't care about that don't you know.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I admit I have never watched The Blues Brothers but that is an incredibly entertaining scene!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Mistletoe Mike again is acting as if he is the only standard for truth and understanding. Isn't that special? Further demonstration of his 1) unlearned arrogance; 2) being a GSC parasite.
Gosh Mike, the fact you started a thread doesn't make you less of a parasite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
more bs, I mean like how many lies are in this section.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Is that the new Way Prods? If so, it might even be worth a sneak into a SNS!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Empathy is more than being sympathetic. Being sympathetic is feeling others’ pain, but not necessarily giving comfort. Empathy is the ability to feel the distress of others and to give them comfort.
From: Empathy: giving comfort - (wellbeing.com.au)
The collaterals often promoted disconnecting from reality. Right off the top of my head I think of wierwille’s Studies in Human Suffering – Job, from victim to victor…what a distortion of reality! In wierwille-theology, Job’s problem was fear – his lack of believing – that allowed the devil to harm his life and family – and when you take the Advanced Class wierwille gets into some next level bull$hit of demonology.
To counter wierwille’s fundamentalism / spiritualism / Gnosticism, and his promoting the bogus law of believing - I suggest looking to other sources – experts in the biblical languages and cultures…some sources mentioned on another thread demystify the book of Job – it’s the age-old battle humankind wages with the pain, misery, and discomforts of life. Some things we can resolve – and with some things all we can do is acquiesce.
Central to the book of Job is the question of human suffering – especially why people who are seemingly innocent suffer, which in turn raises the question about the righteousness of a loving God. Job deals with the question of retribution, the popular theology that the righteous prosper but the wicked suffer – this attempts to vindicate God – theodicy .
Wisdom accounts of innocent suffering are found across the ancient Near East – which shows a universal concern from olden times and is still a contemporary issue...Empathy is humankind's ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
No matter how you slice it and dice it - life is not perfect...there is pain and suffering...hardships...when folks pin their hopes and dreams on the law of believing they're really just hiding their heads in the sand.
I believe God created us as social creatures - social ties help us thrive...the spiritual elitism promoted by wierwille is anathema to social connectedness that promotes happiness, physical health, mental health and general well-being.
~ ~ ~ ~
wierwille’s collaterals are devious in the way they undermine one’s faith in Jesus Christ and impair one’s ability to connect with others or to properly deal with reality...wierwille ideology pushes all-or-nothing thinking...one has only 2 options: either it's wierwille's way or the highway...
Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia in the field of psychology is the perception of contradictory information, and the mental toll of it. PFAL claims what it teaches will increase one's prosperity...12 years of my involvement in running PFAL classes and financially supporting TWI had put a stranglehold on my finances and career...
Cognitive dissonance is typically experienced as psychological stress...It's been my experience with the TWI-mindset that I actually brought on undue stress because the ideas and principles taught in PFAL / the collaterals did nothing to resolve the issue.
The credibility of wierwille’s collaterals relies mostly on the supposed 1942 ‘promise of God’ assigning wierwille the task of ‘accurizing’ the works of others. Imagine God giving wierwille the green light to plagiarize the works of others and furthermore God would help him tie it altogether and fit with the Bible perfectly – resulting in him teaching us “The Word” like it hasn’t been known since the 1st century.
Reviewing wierwille’s collaterals in a normal frame of mind some 37 years after forsaking a cultic-mindset, I find wierwille’s collaterals to be a discombobulated hot mess – the manifesto of a very delusional man.
The incongruity of the whole 1942 promise should be alarming to any Christian…any serious student of the Bible!
Why do I say that?
Well…think about it…doesn’t it seem odd…out of character…even creepy and strange that a Holy benevolent God, biblically famous for His justice, faithfulness, righteousness, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, sovereignty, etc., would choose wierwille for some special earth-shattering assignment that would have a profound impact on the future of Christianity.
Even if wierwille was clean as a whistle in 1942 and had no ill will – God’s choice of him in 1942 would suggest a number of disturbing-faith-shattering ideas – such as the following – and please note these are just a FEW of the many aberrant alternate possibilities in the spacetime continuum if the 1942 promise/God speaking audibly to wierwille really happened:
1. God doesn’t know the future – that wierwille would develop into a misogynistic pathological liar, malignant narcissist, sexual predator, a thieving flagrant plagiarist, megalomaniac, money-grubbing, chain-smoking, drunkard, abusive, calloused and delusional cult-leader.
2.God does know the future – He knew that wierwille would develop into a misogynistic pathological liar, malignant narcissist, sexual predator, a thieving flagrant plagiarist, megalomaniac, money-grubbing, chain-smoking, drunkard, abusive, calloused and delusional cult-leader – and God was okay with that...The 10
commandmentssuggestions are optional.3.True Christianity was lost after the 1st century until a misogynistic pathological liar, malignant narcissist, sexual predator, a thieving flagrant plagiarist, megalomaniac, money-grubbing, chain-smoking, drunkard, abusive, calloused and delusional cult-leader like wierwille came along to get Christianity back on track.
4.What Jesus Christ did way back when was important – but that was then – and this is now “The Word takes the place of the absent Christ.”...if you can't comprehend that - just stick around - keep reading the collaterals, because what wierwille SAID is more important now.
5. God doesn’t care about the harm and pain wierwille caused...and God doesn't care about the shame wierwille brought to the name of Jesus Christ...and God doesn’t even care about the pain you have – the main thing is that we parrot wierwille’s pious platitudes…it’s the ABCs of Christianity: Always Be reading the Collaterals.
6. There really were 4 crucified with Jesus Christ.
7. The Bible really does interpret itself.
~ ~ ~ ~
When one removes the footing of wierwille’s authority and his logical fallacies/eclectic interpolations and his twisting of Scripture, wierwille’s dubious doctrines are de-feeted.
The subterfuge of wierwille’s collaterals is a pretentious connection to reality. They are designed to keep one in mental busywork – it keeps one intellectually and emotionally occupied…and since most of it is nonsense and wishful thinking, there develops a repetitive cycle of frustration and a renewed commitment to making it work... 'rinse and repeat'…it’s predictable...monotonous…a repetition of thought processes and actions.
~ ~ ~ ~
It’s been shared elsewhere that much of wierwille’s collaterals is dogmatic fundamentalism at its best - a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible. It is a mutant subset of a broader counter-culture movement, that used central doctrinal affirmations as a means of defining cultural boundaries. Certain major doctrines like the absolute literal authority of Scripture became barriers to alienate secular culture and give fundamentalists a sense of identity and purpose. A siege mentality - a defensive or paranoid attitude based on the belief that others are hostile toward one, became characteristic of the movement. This military-like-blockade-mindset is amplified by a devotion to wierwille’s collaterals…blockades and barriers – real or imagined impede connections and empathy.
Sociologically, Fundamentalism - Wikipedia is a somewhat reactionary or unreceptive counter-cultural movement – whereas Evangelicalism - Wikipedia is a cultural movement focused on relevance and has a loose basis for self-definition. The element of irrationalism often associated with fundamentalism is lacking in evangelicalism which has produced significant writings in areas of the philosophy of religion and apologetics.
New Living Translation
You keep track of all my sorrows. You have collected all my tears in your bottle. You have recorded each one in your book…Psalm 56:8
Amplified Bible
For He knows our [mortal] frame; He remembers that we are [merely] dust…Psalm 103:14
New International Version
When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd…Matthew 9:36
Contemporary English Version
Jesus understands every weakness of ours, because he was tempted in every way that we are. But he did not sin! …Hebrews 4:15
Contemporary English Version
Finally, all of you should agree and have concern and love for each other. You should also be kind and humble…I Peter 3:8
Amplified Bible
Rejoice with those who rejoice [sharing others’ joy], and weep with those who weep [sharing others’ grief]…Romans 12:15
~ ~ ~ ~
See also:
Empathy | Psychology Today
Why Empathy Makes You More Helpful | Psychology Today
Why is Empathy Important? - SELFFA
Why Is Empathy So Important? - Lifehack
That’s all for now, folks
Edited by T-Boneeverybody in the band - get into it !!!! Can you feel it ?!?!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
For more clarification, T-Bone had quoted Twinky and I quoted where T-Bone had done so.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
It seems some (but not all) of what this guy sets forth reflect what Mike does on GSC.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Interesting little video, Rocky.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes, very telling.
I have my objections to attaching much meaning to debates. That they influence people who watch them is obvious, but that a debate is able to discover or derive truth is very doubtful to me. There are all sorts of limitations to how far a debate involving a complex topic can go.
But this video is not aiming after something so subtle as ultimate truth. It aims at spotting invalid tactics, only.
Four tactics: Twister, Wrangler, Dodger, and Liar. How many of them can we spot here?
I saw the Wrangler tactic used on me in recent weeks by Nathan_JR, then by you, Twinkie, and then by Charity. Three in a row.
I was asked how I felt about God, empathy, and fellowship with Jesus by these folks, respectively. Each time, what I offered was just not enough.
I spotted the pattern after Twinky and Nathan's wrangle, so when Charity set me up for a third time I asked her if she was going to do the same wrangle, before I answered to her setup. My question sailed right over her head, and she immediately found my answer falling short.
The Twisters here are abundant. I am always hit with "So, Mike, that means you must hold the following ridiculous idea as true..." when never such an implication is even close to my position.
The Dodger is probably what Rocky was latching onto, trying to apply the video to me.
There are proper dodges and there are improper dodges.
But this video is only talking about dodging that happens WITHIN a formal debate.
I dodge the entire debate at times, like Raf's thread "Actual Errors in PFAL..." because I disagree with the premise and methods of the debaters. Dodging the entire debate can be a totally honest move.
It is in ENTERING the debate, with the implied promise of willingness to conform to the debate's logical discoveries, that the tactic of dodging is properly seen as dishonest.
The fourth category, the Liar, is a bit more extreme, but nonetheless, I see that being attempted here once in a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Where'd is the spandex stored?
It's Athletes of the Spirit time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Except when it isn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"DODGE, DENY, DISTRACT, BUT NEVER ADMIT AN ERROR IS AN ERROR." - MIKE.
I'm sure, later, Mike regretted being that up-front for once about his methods.
It was remarkably candid about having a blatantly dishonest approach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
1. I am not using "tactics." I merely say what I think. I speak plainly, not in riddles or with hidden or special meanings - unlike you, Mike.
2. You could try paying attention. My handle is TWINKY with a Y. How many times have you seen the name? You managed to spell it correctly the second time. Attention to detail is something TWI drums into its followers. How could you miss that?
3. When the blindly obvious is ignored or overlooked, it makes one wonder what other less obvious things are overlooked or ignored. Wonder how trustworthy the person overlooking things really is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
And we see a 5th tactic taken here not mentioned by the national debate winner investigating the political battle in presidential election past between the Orange Jesus and the Anti Christ.
5. The Pee Wee Herman
”I know you are but what am I”
Here Mike takes every single criticism against himself and turns it into what other people are doing to him. This tactic is used to elicit sympathy from some unnamed audience who doesn’t post here and can barely stand reading anything here.
Well Mike, you must be the woman who kept confessing her kid was going to die. You just don’t have enough beeee leeving to keep from getting attacked.
Either that or you and a small soap dish both can read a room equally well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Your whole post is an interesting walk-through idea about death and spirit. I don't think the spirit can be killed or die, but it can be sleeping and then awakened.
My friend, sirguessalot, could say more about the subjects. I have experienced a little of it, or a lot, but can't find the words yet.
If one is dead then there needs to be a birth or awakening, like a seed in the ground, goes in without life and sprouts into life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I have a hard time finding the right words too - or even trying to articulate some of this stuff...still exploring
I miss Sirguessalot ! He always brought some great insight and thought-provoking ideas to Grease Spot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I too found friendship with Sirguessalot.
He and Pamsandiego and I met for coffee once years ago. He is one of the very few GreaseSpotters I have met in "real life."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I know somebody who knows somebody who knows Mike.
The world just got smaller.
*sniff*
VPW's works were incoherent trash meant to confuse and seduce.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Sorry, this post is long but mostly because of the footnotes below (which can be ignored), but I am trying to be thorough and accurate.
You wrote: I spotted the pattern after Twinky and Nathan's wrangle, so when Charity set me up for a third time I asked her if she was going to do the same wrangle, before I answered to her setup. My question sailed right over her head…
My corrections Mike:
· You did not ask me that question at all. You asked me, “Why do you ask, Charity?” in response to 1my reply to you on a different thread.
· Your question did not sail right over my head. 2I answered it.
· I did not set you up and my questions were not a setup – this idea was in your head - it was not in my heart. You would have realized this if you had read the 3beginning of my post. Instead you sent me a 4snarky response to it.
You wrote: …and she immediately found my answer falling short.
Then WHY do you go back and forth for pages about "intellectual" topics (e.g., the "go-cart" analogy) when the posters obviously find your answers “falling short.” I did get personal in my reply to your answers because the topic was about having a personal relationship with Christ, our Lord and Savior. I suggest you use the disclaimer "Do not reply!" in the future if you want to end a topic prematurely.
1I wrote, “It would be nice to hear you talk more about the "ever present Christ, spiritually within us." What does this mean to you? Other than being inside us, how do you fellowship with Christ throughout the day?
2I am interested in hearing about Christ in your life without any mention of the collaterals.
3Hi, my replies are in italics. I am asking Christ for guidance as I respond. Looking back on what you wrote Mike, I see a pattern of you saying and doing things that sound and look godly but without a sense of warmth, affection, comfort or friendliness in how you speak about Christ in your life. You will see what I mean when/if you read my replies.
It makes me think about my relationships with others throughout my life. Except for my very best friend in childhood, I kept an emotional distance from others. Even though my mother took good care of me, I never experienced a close relationship with her (except at her death bed) because most of her true self was oppressed because of my father's treatment of her. My relationship with my father was a desperate need for his love and trying to please him enough so that he would stop drinking (i.e., codependent). Only my children could opened up my heart to feel, give and receive such warmth.
I have no idea if this describes any part of your life, but if it does, I can honestly say that within the past few months from being on GSC, my relationship with God and Christ has begun to change from an intellectual knowledge of them to a personal one.
4How'd I do on that, not mentioning the collaterals, ma'am?
I haven't gone back to read my post yet [the one I sent you], so I'm hearing TV game show music in my head as I prepare to go read it.
If you were my English Comp. 101 professor, and considering the brevity of my requested essay, what grade would you give me?
Edited by CharityTry to keep that grade separate from the grade you'd give me as a Theology professor would, reading the same mini essay.
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.