If the ministry didn't teach material abundance, what's the point of ABS? You don't honestly think people would willingly give 15% of their income for something they couldn't hold in their hand, do you?
And then there's the booklet Christians Should Be Prosperous given out with the class materials.
Starting to add up, aren't they?
The material abundance/prosperity doctrine was a subtle, devious bait and switch.
I remember many cunning, underhanded comments about "what's available" whenever anyone half-seriously mentioned something that they wanted. You know, like when watching a football game on TV and a commercial for a car or truck or something comes on. Someone might say, "Oooohh, I really want one of those for my next vehicle." A meaningless statement. An innocuous conversation starter. A nothing expression.
But the FC, the local FITW, just had interject softly, yet dead MF'n seriously, "Well, it's available." Which, of course, is the bait designed to entice the fish to ask, "It is?" Then the hook would be set when the FC answered, "You just got to know how (H-O-W) to get it...."
I never chased these shiny lures because I learned my lesson with Amway. My aunt and uncle used to force the phrase "the business" into every conversation, no matter how mundane. Dropping this vague phrase was so intentional, so cunning, so wicked. The uninitiated would take the bait and ask "what business are you in?" (Mmmph... huge mistake... here we go!)
If anyone believes vpw or Amway and commits their life, it almost always leads to financial ruin for the acolyte, but untold material riches for the people at the top of the pyramid.
I was reminded, a few months ago, that we once discussed microwave ovens. Mike recited the internet myth that microwave ovens leak radiation. I linked the real story. AFTER that, Mike said that the link confirmed that microwave ovens are a radiation danger. I summarized the danger- according to the link (an official source) , microwave ovens may leak an inch or so past the case. So, unless you drape yourself across a microwave oven while it's running, you're safe from a radiation leak...I thought of that when he was running his lines recently on how well he grasps science.
I’ve noticed similar inconsistencies of his thinking process on various topics - it's apparent when he discusses doctrinal stuff, PFAL / wierwille stuff besides scientific and technical stuff. Offhand, there’s only a few reasons I can think of that would explain his often-irrational theorizing, contradictory analysis as well as the inability to explain or grasp most simple science stuff:
1.Mike is suffering from old age, mental illness or brain injury:Maybehe did have experience in all the science stuff he talks about – but age, mental illness, traumatic head injury may be a factor. I can relate to all 3 in some respects. I’ve started having issues recalling the name of a person I’ve met but haven’t seen in a long time or when drafting a post, mid-sentence I draw a blank for the right word to use. I don’t mean what’s appropriate – but what the damn thing is called. Maybe early waring signs of dementia or aphasia or something – like what Bruce Willis is dealing with. I did have a serious concussion – I was unconscious for a bit - in a truck rollover at work in ’97. But this ‘unable to think of that word’ is a recent development...I started taking Prevagen - hope that helps.
On the mental illness factor – I think of the movie based on a true storyA Beautiful Mind (2001) - IMDb…but John Nash suffered from schizophrenia which did NOT affect his brilliant mind’s capacity to make foundational contributions to - among other areas - game theory, real algebraic and differential geometry, mathematical analysis of partial differential equations and proposed a new encryption–decryption machine. ( see John Forbes Nash Jr. - Wikipedia ). The impact of his mental illness didn’t seem to affect his mental acuity, logic, interpretation of any data – rather he suffered from paranoia and hallucinations…I’ve had the same problem, but my excuse was LSD and weed – also truth be told I’m no genius – I suck at math and logic – but hallucinations and paranoia did not have a big negative impact on playing the bass….oh and I still have this recurring fear that I am hallucinating I’m not Jack Bruce. Occasionally fans come up to me and say yo dude I thought you died in 2014.
****
2. Mike suffers from some delusional disorder: (seeDelusional disorder - Wikipedia ) He may or may not have had some limited experience in some areas he talks about.The biggest telltale symptom I’ve noticed is his strong mistaken beliefs despite superior evidence to the contrary. That applies across the board concerning PFAL, wierwille, the Bible, and theoretical and hard sciences. Hard for amateurs and laymen like me to diagnose someone over cyberspace – but I leave that possibility on the table till proven wrong.
****
3. Mike is a phony on many fronts: I tend to lean more on this reason. When in doubt – I don’t get into trying to judge one’s motivations or ‘game plan’ – so in cyberspace I go on face value – what does their online presence suggest? Phonies are easy to spot if you follow their schtick. I’ve been coming to Grease Spot for 17 years and Mike’s various routines, mutating ideology, ready defense of wierwille / PFAL and modus operandiseem to suggest he is a troll, a phony or someone (or group) who enjoys messing with Grease Spotters.
****
4.It’s a combination of 1,2 and 3.
~ ~ ~ ~
If Mike is reading this post – I hope he can interpret it properly – and for what it’s worth, my intention is to provide him with honest feedback so he can refine his delivery and not get laughed at. I’m not trying to attack him personally. It’s like trying to advise a public speaker who lacks self-awareness.
You tell him his fly is open before he walks out to the lectern and embarrasses himself – and he refuses to believe you. Several others tell him. Point to his reflection in the backstage mirror – but he still doesn’t see it or refuses to look. He goes out there – delivers his message while there’s a smattering of chuckles and snickering in the audience. He finally snaps at the audienceyou people are unreceptive to any of these great truth I shareand storms off the stage.
Edited by T-Bone what's another word for brains? Answer: kidneys
Pains me to do this, but: discussions about the mental health of posters is a violation of our rules [many of which were developed to address the way I pounced on Mike way back when].
If you are aware of a formal diagnosis, keep it to yourself. If he shares a formal diagnosis, he opened the door and it's fair game. But if you're the one making the diagnosis, you are not qualified or permitted to do so, no matter how well-founded your diagnosis may be.
I think Mike's positions are bat crap crazy. But it's not my business or yours to diagnose his mental illness.
Mikes back story is sketch. I’ve questioned this line a few times. We are anonymous on the internet. This easily could be a fictional account whose logins are circulated among certain clergy who want to do something about GSC. So they engage and keep coming back on fronts that I don’t think a normal single person would.
If this were the case and I’m not stating it as fact just raising the possibility due to the circumstances then the mental side would present as not normal as it’s not one person all the time.
I know that he protests greatly and talks about one person he actually met who can vouch for his identity but in reality other than those who have disclosed it we don’t know each others irl identity here.
Just being logical not trying to be a conspiracy theorist. Maybe I’m wrong in observation maybe not.
I've spoken to Mike on the phone. For what it's worth, he only had one voice. :)
Hey, back on the topic of Ralph Dubofsky's horses hit story about SIT, anyone have his father's name or the years he taught at CCNY? I tried googling "least competent linguists imaginable," but nothing came back. Ditto for "linguists who wouldn't recognize a Nobel Prize winning paper falling into his lap." Zero results.
Fwiw, I've thought the same, however, being somewhat of an internet sleuth I can say Mike is a real person and I'm saying this with 100% certainty and I'm saying it without doxing Mike.
Hey, back on the topic of Ralph Dubofsky's horses hit story about SIT, anyone have his father's name or the years he taught at CCNY? I tried googling "least competent linguists imaginable," but nothing came back. Ditto for "linguists who wouldn't recognize a Nobel Prize winning paper falling into his lap." Zero results.
I would agree with Raf. Something has to be missing in the account. A scientist encounters something he can't explain and his best response is "If you can't put it under a microscope..."
One wonders how he planned on putting spoken word under a microscope.
It's worse than "you can't put it under a microscope." He was presented with evidence that would have knocked a professional linguis on his a$$, and his response was "no, sorry, the interpretation was only a paraphrase and not a translation." Like, the fact that an actual language was produced by someone who didn't know the language was a phenomenon that didn't impress A LINGUIST!
That would be like me not reporting on a play because the performance was interrupted by the shooting of a President in the balcony. What-what-WHAT?
Now, I am no longer on speaking terms with the teller of this tale because of chiropteral expulsion distortions of reality, but it seems to me we can start fact checking this story by verifying the occupation of the one person, aside from the teller of the tale, whose identity we do have: The linguist. Unfortunately, we don't have a full account. Just a likely last name. Oh, and his profession. Oh, and where he worked, along with an estimate of when.
Fluent in 13 languages! That's bloody impressive.
A linguist actually verified a firsthand example of glossolalia producing a language and failed to recognize the significance of the event in his professional field.
Thats the awesomest most euphamistic way of saying bat $hit crazy I ever came across....almost like having one's fecal matter amalgamated into one tight cohesive unit is to have one's $hit together...or something like that...
It's worse than "you can't put it under a microscope." He was presented with evidence that would have knocked a professional linguis on his a$$, and his response was "no, sorry, the interpretation was only a paraphrase and not a translation." Like, the fact that an actual language was produced by someone who didn't know the language was a phenomenon that didn't impress A LINGUIST!
That would be like me not reporting on a play because the performance was interrupted by the shooting of a President in the balcony. What-what-WHAT?
Now, I am no longer on speaking terms with the teller of this tale because of chiropteral expulsion distortions of reality, but it seems to me we can start fact checking this story by verifying the occupation of the one person, aside from the teller of the tale, whose identity we do have: The linguist. Unfortunately, we don't have a full account. Just a likely last name. Oh, and his profession. Oh, and where he worked, along with an estimate of when.
Fluent in 13 languages! That's bloody impressive.
A linguist actually verified a firsthand example of glossolalia producing a language and failed to recognize the significance of the event in his professional field.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Here is a great example of HOW to think vs WHAT to beleeeve. This is what it means to doubt. There is no risk in doubting, questioning. Beleeef is a liability. (It might even cost you $787.5M for spreading beleeef.)
I had the same impressions and questions when I read this story. And the same kinds of questions for the withered hand healing in India and for the rabbi teaching the bastard Jew bar mitzvah and so many others.
One hundred years ago Bertrand Russell, when asked about the greatest existential threat to mankind, he answered, "Credulousness." (I'll find the clip and post it.)
--
Because we are in the doctrinal sub, I'll bring up doubting Thomas, again. I think the author of John had a problem with Thomas for reasons we can never know for sure. I don't take the same traditional lesson that most religious leaders propagate.
Thomas found out something. He found TF out!! Of all the apostles he was the only one who who was rewarded for questioning, doubting, endeavoring to find out. His reward? A profound disillusionment, understanding and awareness that left him speechless -- because, what could he possibly say? He didn't have to believe, he knew, he found out.
Here is a great example of HOW to think vs WHAT to beleeeve. This is what it means to doubt. There is no risk in doubting, questioning. Beleeef is a liability. (It might even cost you $797.5M for spreading beleeef.)
I had the same impressions and questions when I read this story. And the same kinds of questions for the withered hand healing in India and for the rabbi teaching the bastard Jew bar mitzvah and so many others.
One hundred years ago Bertrand Russell, when asked about the greatest existential threat to mankind, he answered, "Credulousness." (I'll find the clip and post it.)
--
Because we are in the doctrinal sub, I'll bring up doubting Thomas, again. I think the author of John had a problem with Thomas for reasons we can never know for sure. I don't take the same traditional lesson that most religious leaders propagate.
Thomas found out something. He found TF out!! Of all the apostles he was the only one who who was rewarded for questioning, doubting, endeavoring to find out. His reward? A profound disillusionment, understanding and awareness that left him speechless -- because, what could he possibly say? He didn't have to believe, he knew, he found out.
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”
Because we are in the doctrinal sub, I'll bring up doubting Thomas, again. I think the author of John had a problem with Thomas for reasons we can never know for sure. I don't take the same traditional lesson that most religious leaders propagate.
Thomas found out something. He found TF out!! Of all the apostles he was the only one who who was rewarded for questioning, doubting, endeavoring to find out. His reward? A profound disillusionment, understanding and awareness that left him speechless -- because, what could he possibly say? He didn't have to believe, he knew, he found out.
To this I would add two things:
1. Jesus gives "most religious leaders" the justification for the traditional lesson they propagate when he says "You believe because you see. Blessed are those who do not see but believe." I would, of course, put a statement like that in a category similar to the "vaccine against the reason virus" that some religions have, discussed at length in another thread. When you think asking for evidence is an affront to Jesus, you are forced to conclude that believing without asking for evidence is somehow a virtue. It's not. But whatever.
More importantly,
2. This is actually another example of a story that defies credibility. Thomas doubts despite the testimony of his closest friends. Makes a spectacular demand of Jesus: I'm not gonna believe until he beats me at Tic-Tac-Toe. Jesus comes, lays down three x's and wins. And Matthew finds none of this worth mentioning. And Mark finds none of this worth mentioning. And Luke finds none of this worth mentioning. Only John, 60-some-odd years after the fact, thinks this might be a story worth preserving.
Yeah, no.
I mean, yeah, it's what the Bible says. But credible? No.
If the ministry didn't teach material abundance, what's the point of ABS? You don't honestly think people would willingly give 15% of their income for something they couldn't hold in their hand, do you?
And then there's the booklet Christians Should Be Prosperous given out with the class materials.
Starting to add up, aren't they?
This is dangerous for me to respond outside my backlog. It could be lost forever.
But this bears some brief response.
By operating material giving we learn how to give spiritually.
By WHERE we give to, we are already learning this.
When we give anything we are better able to receive both physical teaching from men and spiritual guidance from God.
Giving is a very high form of biology. I think it is in birds and reptiles, but it becomes abundant in mammals. Caring for the young is it's central theme, and starting point.
*/*/*
The idea of giving only or first to TWI was supposed to be a temporary measure in 1972, because so many of the twig leaders were very, very young, inexperienced in life, and untrained in the Word. It is regrettable that it was enshrined and mounted in concrete there.
I was reminded, a few months ago, that we once discussed microwave ovens. Mike recited the internet myth that microwave ovens leak radiation. I linked the real story. AFTER that, Mike said that the link confirmed that microwave ovens are a radiation danger.
Yikes! I do not remember that at all !!!
I vaguely remember a thread about LCM and microwave ovens. But I don't think I said anything even similar to what you say I said.
I did have a bunch of surgeries in the later half of 2021, and medicated some at times. But I know what the wavelengths of microwaves are and how they can't leak out. I use my microwave every day several times, and sometimes I get 2 inches away to see if anything is boiling.
I think you might want to consult your anonymous friend and see if they had a bunch of surgeries or something themselves. Ask them for a date and thread name. Ask them to squat.
The only thing microwave ovens do is jiggle water atoms.
This is dangerous for me to respond outside my backlog. It could be lost forever.
But this bears some brief response.
By operating material giving we learn how to give spiritually.
By WHERE we give to, we are already learning this.
Yah, sure, we see this in the ministry. Saint Vic et al, who receive so much, gave what?
14 minutes ago, Mike said:
When we give anything we are better able to receive both physical teaching from men and spiritual guidance from God.
So then why didn't Saint Vic et al give of all that cash?
14 minutes ago, Mike said:
Giving is a very high form of biology. I think it is in birds and reptiles, but it becomes abundant in mammals. Caring for the young is it's central theme, and starting point.
Nobody cares.
14 minutes ago, Mike said:
*/*/*
The idea of giving only or first to TWI was supposed to be a temporary measure in 1972, because so many of the twig leaders were very, very young, inexperienced in life, and untrained in the Word. It is regrettable that it was enshrined and mounted in concrete there.
Well, once Saint Vic saw all that money, greed took over.
This is dangerous for me to respond outside my backlog. It could be lost forever.
But this bears some brief response.
By operating material giving we learn how to give spiritually.
By WHERE we give to, we are already learning this.
When we give anything we are better able to receive both physical teaching from men and spiritual guidance from God.
Giving is a very high form of biology. I think it is in birds and reptiles, but it becomes abundant in mammals. Caring for the young is it's central theme, and starting point.
*/*/*
The idea of giving only or first to TWI was supposed to be a temporary measure in 1972, because so many of the twig leaders were very, very young, inexperienced in life, and untrained in the Word. It is regrettable that it was enshrined and mounted in concrete ther
If the ministry wasn't teaching material abundance, why the promise God would give us our heart's desire? I believe there was even a song about it from Pressed Down or Joyful Noise.
Yah, but I'm not encouraging a!ready impoverish people to give me 15% of their income with the promise God will bless them with a blessing so big the won't be able to receive it and they'll find their way out of poverty.
Actually it's his off-handed way of suggesting what we posted was insignificant as far as he was concerned.
Bingo! We have a winner!
Most of you folks post in response to me vast amounts of total garbage chaff which is disguised as humor. This is an attempt to hide good things that I post from the "Read-Only" audience at home watching this Reality Show. This chaff attack strategy is a standard tactic when you have no serious response to offer.
It would be easy as pie to make a text file of any page I post on, and color the chaff paragraphs in bold red fonts, or maybe shrink them way down to 2 point micro fonts. Reading the thread and skipping the chaff would be easier and faster for anyone, and no content would be lost. Lost would be the failed attempts of wannabee stand-up comics.
Maybe we should make the GSC book formatted that way, but I don't really know how that would work in the screenplay.
Yah, but I'm not encouraging a!ready impoverish people to give me 15% of their income with the promise God will bless them with a blessing so big the won't be able to receive it and they'll find their way out of poverty.
Well, I don't do that either, and I don't condone others doing it.
What you describe could conceivably be done by revelation in rare cases, if God knew it would be good for the hearers.
HOWEVER, I have to admit that like the scarcity of miracles, there was a scarcity of genuine revelation received by leadership as time went by. Most revelations were faked and carefully announced ONLY if there was no way to watch and see if it was accurate. No one ever got revelation on the horse races or lottery numbers that I heard of.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
358
229
215
220
Popular Days
Mar 4
144
May 2
83
Apr 29
77
Mar 5
70
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 358 posts
So_crates 229 posts
OldSkool 215 posts
Nathan_Jr 220 posts
Popular Days
Mar 4 2023
144 posts
May 2 2023
83 posts
Apr 29 2023
77 posts
Mar 5 2023
70 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
I believe that the real deal is possible and the path toward it is to address and correct all the doctrinal and practical error introduced by VPs box top doctorate research. isolation from other
chockfull
The Corps is a necessary cult element providing free labor at the expense of volunteers lives. Any imagery like the Marines promotes extremist behavior. No other Christian seminary or school use
Nathan_Jr
"Teaching" Romans to the Corps, Q&A: LCM: How much does your behavior that people do not see influence your example to them? VPW: It doesn't, unless you believe it will. LCM: You u
Posted Images
Nathan_Jr
The material abundance/prosperity doctrine was a subtle, devious bait and switch.
I remember many cunning, underhanded comments about "what's available" whenever anyone half-seriously mentioned something that they wanted. You know, like when watching a football game on TV and a commercial for a car or truck or something comes on. Someone might say, "Oooohh, I really want one of those for my next vehicle." A meaningless statement. An innocuous conversation starter. A nothing expression.
But the FC, the local FITW, just had interject softly, yet dead MF'n seriously, "Well, it's available." Which, of course, is the bait designed to entice the fish to ask, "It is?" Then the hook would be set when the FC answered, "You just got to know how (H-O-W) to get it...."
I never chased these shiny lures because I learned my lesson with Amway. My aunt and uncle used to force the phrase "the business" into every conversation, no matter how mundane. Dropping this vague phrase was so intentional, so cunning, so wicked. The uninitiated would take the bait and ask "what business are you in?" (Mmmph... huge mistake... here we go!)
If anyone believes vpw or Amway and commits their life, it almost always leads to financial ruin for the acolyte, but untold material riches for the people at the top of the pyramid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’ve noticed similar inconsistencies of his thinking process on various topics - it's apparent when he discusses doctrinal stuff, PFAL / wierwille stuff besides scientific and technical stuff. Offhand, there’s only a few reasons I can think of that would explain his often-irrational theorizing, contradictory analysis as well as the inability to explain or grasp most simple science stuff:
1.Mike is suffering from old age, mental illness or brain injury: Maybe he did have experience in all the science stuff he talks about – but age, mental illness, traumatic head injury may be a factor. I can relate to all 3 in some respects. I’ve started having issues recalling the name of a person I’ve met but haven’t seen in a long time or when drafting a post, mid-sentence I draw a blank for the right word to use. I don’t mean what’s appropriate – but what the damn thing is called. Maybe early waring signs of dementia or aphasia or something – like what Bruce Willis is dealing with. I did have a serious concussion – I was unconscious for a bit - in a truck rollover at work in ’97. But this ‘unable to think of that word’ is a recent development...I started taking Prevagen - hope that helps.
On the mental illness factor – I think of the movie based on a true story A Beautiful Mind (2001) - IMDb …but John Nash suffered from schizophrenia which did NOT affect his brilliant mind’s capacity to make foundational contributions to - among other areas - game theory, real algebraic and differential geometry, mathematical analysis of partial differential equations and proposed a new encryption–decryption machine. ( see John Forbes Nash Jr. - Wikipedia ). The impact of his mental illness didn’t seem to affect his mental acuity, logic, interpretation of any data – rather he suffered from paranoia and hallucinations…I’ve had the same problem, but my excuse was LSD and weed – also truth be told I’m no genius – I suck at math and logic – but hallucinations and paranoia did not have a big negative impact on playing the bass….oh and I still have this recurring fear that I am hallucinating I’m not Jack Bruce. Occasionally fans come up to me and say yo dude I thought you died in 2014.
****
2. Mike suffers from some delusional disorder: (see Delusional disorder - Wikipedia ) He may or may not have had some limited experience in some areas he talks about. The biggest telltale symptom I’ve noticed is his strong mistaken beliefs despite superior evidence to the contrary. That applies across the board concerning PFAL, wierwille, the Bible, and theoretical and hard sciences. Hard for amateurs and laymen like me to diagnose someone over cyberspace – but I leave that possibility on the table till proven wrong.
****
3. Mike is a phony on many fronts: I tend to lean more on this reason. When in doubt – I don’t get into trying to judge one’s motivations or ‘game plan’ – so in cyberspace I go on face value – what does their online presence suggest? Phonies are easy to spot if you follow their schtick. I’ve been coming to Grease Spot for 17 years and Mike’s various routines, mutating ideology, ready defense of wierwille / PFAL and modus operandi seem to suggest he is a troll, a phony or someone (or group) who enjoys messing with Grease Spotters.
****
4.It’s a combination of 1,2 and 3.
~ ~ ~ ~
If Mike is reading this post – I hope he can interpret it properly – and for what it’s worth, my intention is to provide him with honest feedback so he can refine his delivery and not get laughed at. I’m not trying to attack him personally. It’s like trying to advise a public speaker who lacks self-awareness.
You tell him his fly is open before he walks out to the lectern and embarrasses himself – and he refuses to believe you. Several others tell him. Point to his reflection in the backstage mirror – but he still doesn’t see it or refuses to look. He goes out there – delivers his message while there’s a smattering of chuckles and snickering in the audience. He finally snaps at the audience you people are unreceptive to any of these great truth I share and storms off the stage.
Edited by T-Bonewhat's another word for brains? Answer: kidneys
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yeah...gotcha...regular mR Wizard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Pains me to do this, but: discussions about the mental health of posters is a violation of our rules [many of which were developed to address the way I pounced on Mike way back when].
If you are aware of a formal diagnosis, keep it to yourself. If he shares a formal diagnosis, he opened the door and it's fair game. But if you're the one making the diagnosis, you are not qualified or permitted to do so, no matter how well-founded your diagnosis may be.
I think Mike's positions are bat crap crazy. But it's not my business or yours to diagnose his mental illness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Mikes back story is sketch. I’ve questioned this line a few times. We are anonymous on the internet. This easily could be a fictional account whose logins are circulated among certain clergy who want to do something about GSC. So they engage and keep coming back on fronts that I don’t think a normal single person would.
If this were the case and I’m not stating it as fact just raising the possibility due to the circumstances then the mental side would present as not normal as it’s not one person all the time.
I know that he protests greatly and talks about one person he actually met who can vouch for his identity but in reality other than those who have disclosed it we don’t know each others irl identity here.
Just being logical not trying to be a conspiracy theorist. Maybe I’m wrong in observation maybe not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I've spoken to Mike on the phone. For what it's worth, he only had one voice. :)
Hey, back on the topic of Ralph Dubofsky's horses hit story about SIT, anyone have his father's name or the years he taught at CCNY? I tried googling "least competent linguists imaginable," but nothing came back. Ditto for "linguists who wouldn't recognize a Nobel Prize winning paper falling into his lap." Zero results.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Fwiw, I've thought the same, however, being somewhat of an internet sleuth I can say Mike is a real person and I'm saying this with 100% certainty and I'm saying it without doxing Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I would agree with Raf. Something has to be missing in the account. A scientist encounters something he can't explain and his best response is "If you can't put it under a microscope..."
One wonders how he planned on putting spoken word under a microscope.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It's worse than "you can't put it under a microscope." He was presented with evidence that would have knocked a professional linguis on his a$$, and his response was "no, sorry, the interpretation was only a paraphrase and not a translation." Like, the fact that an actual language was produced by someone who didn't know the language was a phenomenon that didn't impress A LINGUIST!
That would be like me not reporting on a play because the performance was interrupted by the shooting of a President in the balcony. What-what-WHAT?
Now, I am no longer on speaking terms with the teller of this tale because of chiropteral expulsion distortions of reality, but it seems to me we can start fact checking this story by verifying the occupation of the one person, aside from the teller of the tale, whose identity we do have: The linguist. Unfortunately, we don't have a full account. Just a likely last name. Oh, and his profession. Oh, and where he worked, along with an estimate of when.
Fluent in 13 languages! That's bloody impressive.
A linguist actually verified a firsthand example of glossolalia producing a language and failed to recognize the significance of the event in his professional field.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Mike is the world's foremost authority, successor to Professor Irwin Corey. Corey lived to be more than 100 years old.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Thats the awesomest most euphamistic way of saying bat $hit crazy I ever came across....almost like having one's fecal matter amalgamated into one tight cohesive unit is to have one's $hit together...or something like that...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Here is a great example of HOW to think vs WHAT to beleeeve. This is what it means to doubt. There is no risk in doubting, questioning. Beleeef is a liability. (It might even cost you $787.5M for spreading beleeef.)
I had the same impressions and questions when I read this story. And the same kinds of questions for the withered hand healing in India and for the rabbi teaching the bastard Jew bar mitzvah and so many others.
One hundred years ago Bertrand Russell, when asked about the greatest existential threat to mankind, he answered, "Credulousness." (I'll find the clip and post it.)
--
Because we are in the doctrinal sub, I'll bring up doubting Thomas, again. I think the author of John had a problem with Thomas for reasons we can never know for sure. I don't take the same traditional lesson that most religious leaders propagate.
Thomas found out something. He found TF out!! Of all the apostles he was the only one who who was rewarded for questioning, doubting, endeavoring to find out. His reward? A profound disillusionment, understanding and awareness that left him speechless -- because, what could he possibly say? He didn't have to believe, he knew, he found out.
Edited by Nathan_JrThese damn gloves!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”
— Thomas Jefferson
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
To this I would add two things:
1. Jesus gives "most religious leaders" the justification for the traditional lesson they propagate when he says "You believe because you see. Blessed are those who do not see but believe." I would, of course, put a statement like that in a category similar to the "vaccine against the reason virus" that some religions have, discussed at length in another thread. When you think asking for evidence is an affront to Jesus, you are forced to conclude that believing without asking for evidence is somehow a virtue. It's not. But whatever.
More importantly,
2. This is actually another example of a story that defies credibility. Thomas doubts despite the testimony of his closest friends. Makes a spectacular demand of Jesus: I'm not gonna believe until he beats me at Tic-Tac-Toe. Jesus comes, lays down three x's and wins. And Matthew finds none of this worth mentioning. And Mark finds none of this worth mentioning. And Luke finds none of this worth mentioning. Only John, 60-some-odd years after the fact, thinks this might be a story worth preserving.
Yeah, no.
I mean, yeah, it's what the Bible says. But credible? No.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
This is dangerous for me to respond outside my backlog. It could be lost forever.
But this bears some brief response.
By operating material giving we learn how to give spiritually.
By WHERE we give to, we are already learning this.
When we give anything we are better able to receive both physical teaching from men and spiritual guidance from God.
Giving is a very high form of biology. I think it is in birds and reptiles, but it becomes abundant in mammals. Caring for the young is it's central theme, and starting point.
*/*/*
The idea of giving only or first to TWI was supposed to be a temporary measure in 1972, because so many of the twig leaders were very, very young, inexperienced in life, and untrained in the Word. It is regrettable that it was enshrined and mounted in concrete there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yikes! I do not remember that at all !!!
I vaguely remember a thread about LCM and microwave ovens. But I don't think I said anything even similar to what you say I said.
I did have a bunch of surgeries in the later half of 2021, and medicated some at times. But I know what the wavelengths of microwaves are and how they can't leak out. I use my microwave every day several times, and sometimes I get 2 inches away to see if anything is boiling.
I think you might want to consult your anonymous friend and see if they had a bunch of surgeries or something themselves. Ask them for a date and thread name. Ask them to squat.
Edited by MikeThe only thing microwave ovens do is jiggle water atoms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Yah, sure, we see this in the ministry. Saint Vic et al, who receive so much, gave what?
So then why didn't Saint Vic et al give of all that cash?
Nobody cares.
Well, once Saint Vic saw all that money, greed took over.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That could happen.... to you and me, as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
If the ministry wasn't teaching material abundance, why the promise God would give us our heart's desire? I believe there was even a song about it from Pressed Down or Joyful Noise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Yah, but I'm not encouraging a!ready impoverish people to give me 15% of their income with the promise God will bless them with a blessing so big the won't be able to receive it and they'll find their way out of poverty.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And somehow you think this makes acting on greed right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Bingo! We have a winner!
Most of you folks post in response to me vast amounts of total garbage chaff which is disguised as humor. This is an attempt to hide good things that I post from the "Read-Only" audience at home watching this Reality Show. This chaff attack strategy is a standard tactic when you have no serious response to offer.
It would be easy as pie to make a text file of any page I post on, and color the chaff paragraphs in bold red fonts, or maybe shrink them way down to 2 point micro fonts. Reading the thread and skipping the chaff would be easier and faster for anyone, and no content would be lost. Lost would be the failed attempts of wannabee stand-up comics.
Maybe we should make the GSC book formatted that way, but I don't really know how that would work in the screenplay.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Not at all.
Why do you say that?
Because you think (erroniously) that I think VPW did no wrong?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well, I don't do that either, and I don't condone others doing it.
What you describe could conceivably be done by revelation in rare cases, if God knew it would be good for the hearers.
HOWEVER, I have to admit that like the scarcity of miracles, there was a scarcity of genuine revelation received by leadership as time went by. Most revelations were faked and carefully announced ONLY if there was no way to watch and see if it was accurate. No one ever got revelation on the horse races or lottery numbers that I heard of.
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.