Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


T-Bone last won the day on October 25

T-Bone had the most liked content!


Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    NOT in Rome City anymore
  • Interests
    i have an amp that goes up to eleven !

Recent Profile Visitors

23,352 profile views

T-Bone's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/14)

  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges



  1. Welcome to Grease Spot, BHolmes !!!! I appreciate you sharing your story. I can relate to some of what you shared – I was in The Way International for 12 years, and had just finished the way corps leadership training program when the founding president victor paul wierwille passed away – and since The Way is a cult of personality it was a tumultuous time of top ministry leadership vying for power. That’s when I started to get a feeling there was something really wrong – as you talked about wolves in sheep clothing, the con and using the church for personal gain – that became more and more obvious to me as I watched power struggles – they each wanted to be the top dog and claimed they were fighting for the truth, but I think they each were fighting for the lion’s share the wolf’s share of fleecing the sheep. Your talking about demonic influence and the possessed engineer who sabotaged the space shuttle sounds just like the bull$hit we heard in the Advanced Class – wierwille claimed cancer was caused by a devil spirit - - or maybe it WAS a devil spirit – can’t remember the whacky details now – who cares - it doesn’t matter anyway – it was all bull$hit . All these pseudo-Christian groups use the same spiritualism/Gnosticism/conspiracy theories to manipulate and motivate followers – whether out of fear of the devil and his army of demons or out of fear of disobeying God. I’m glad you’re free from that nonsense…glad you’re here…thanks again for sharing your story…and have a cup of cappuccino on me!
  2. I guess you’ve tried editing it out- does it not show a blank space when you go into edit mode? if it takes forever when you’re trying to save an edit - you might want to clear all cookies and history from your browser - - Grease Spot website is real picky about that - it hangs me up a lot if I’ve done a lot of browsing
  3. short answer - she's human - and belongs to a religious order - kinda like Jedi in Star Wars - see link below Reverend Mother | Dune Wiki | Fandom
  4. That’s some deep thoughts and good analysis, Waysider ! …and you got me thinking about the nuanced differences between religious faith and conspiracy theories. One of the following articles mentions briefly religious faith as a wish to believe. For me that is an interesting idea I’d like to follow up. Religious faith – it’s NOT using something equivalent to the The Force in Star Wars – that works for saint and sinner alike. Religious faith may be more like a wish – to feel or express a strong desire or hope for something that is not easily attainable; want something that cannot or probably will not happen (dictionary def.). Because a metaphysical truth is a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses – I tend to think a person of any particular faith probably has some level of doubt about their own religious persuasion. Since I left TWI, I’ve gone from seeing myself as a true believer and more like a Christian Agnostic – I accept the things of the Bible as true – I don’t know for sure but I hope they are. You also got me thinking about the ideology of wierwille that was presented in the PFAL class and later comprehensively detailed out in The Advanced Class. It tended to foster a false sense of intellectual superiority. We were the enlightened ones. We were the ones who really knew what was going on and were aware of all the forces in play – we bought into wierwille’s conspiracy theory that supposedly linked the spiritual realm with interpersonal and even political situations. The spiritualism/Gnosticism of wierwille is a lot like conspiracy theories in that they seem to have the same engine as the driving force behind it – being based on prejudice (preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience) and insufficient evidence. …anyway…some more “thought food” in articles below: “Many who believe and then propagate false conspiracy theories are also failing to own their intellectual weaknesses. One aspect of this is that we must learn to accept our intellectual limitations. For example, as a friend of mine recently and rightly pointed out to me, those who believe in a minority view in a particular field (e.g., climate change) or who believe in one or more conspiracy theories (e.g., the COVID vaccines are designed to allow the government to track our movements) ought to question why they, as a layperson, are intellectually capable of discerning that some outliers in a particular field are correct, rather than the overwhelming consensus of experts. This is a failure of intellectual humility because it is a failure to accept that one is simply not sufficiently equipped to make these kinds of judgments, at least in a reliable manner.” From: Psychology Today – the cure for belief in conspiracy theories https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethics-everyone/202110/the-cure-belief-in-conspiracy-theories “Why do you think some people latch onto conspiracies that are so clearly against commonly held beliefs? What’s the psychology behind that? There are many findings from psychology research that suggest that people who believe in conspiracy theories are more likely to have a variety of cognitive quirks. But the question touches on exactly how I like to think about conspiracy theories, which is that they begin with a rejection of authoritative accounts and generally accepted beliefs. That makes conspiracy theories different from, for example, religious beliefs that are grounded in faith and arguably a wish to believe. Conspiracy theories, in contrast, start with disbelief in conventional wisdom in favor of a kind of secret, malevolent, “real story” that’s being hidden from the public through some cover-up. There’s good evidence that this disbelief is rooted in mistrust, although I think that’s an underappreciated aspect of how conspiracy theories arise. What does it really mean to believe in something on a psychological level? That’s a great question. The reality is that it’s hard to find a consistent definition of what a belief is in psychology. I like to define a belief as “a cognitive representation of the nature of reality that includes our inner experiences, the world around us, and the world beyond.” Just don’t ask me to define “cognitive representation.” But when we talk about the act of believing, it can be helpful to break it down into components. For example, one important dimension of believing is conviction, which is the degree to which we hold onto beliefs in the face of different opinions or evidence to the contrary. The extent to which we believe something varies widely depending on a specific belief or a specific individual. And it’s these differences in conviction that are often more psychologically relevant than differences in the content of beliefs.” From Psychology Today Understanding the Psychology of Conspiracy Theories Part 1 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202001/understanding-the-psychology-conspiracy-theories-part-1 “What’s the difference between scientific skepticism and denialism? Skepticism in science is about not believing in something unless there is objective evidence and being skeptical about the reliability of one-time, subjective observations. While conspiracy theories often claim to be skeptics, they’re often really more denialists who are actively rejecting the evidence. There’s a core feeling that authority and experts aren’t to be trusted, which then paves the way towards embracing more outlandish ideas. In this way, when mistrust manifests as denialism, it leaves us vulnerable to misinformation.” From Psychology Today Understanding the Psychology of Conspiracy Theories Part 2 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202001/understanding-the-psychology-conspiracy-theories-part-2
  5. I recently watched it and really enjoyed ! I also think Dune – whether the 1965 novel or the different movie versions is an acquired taste...the storyline has some interesting themes: religion, politics, superhero, and messiahs…Of course, it does help if you’ve read the book first. I’m a sci-fi fan anyway – my older brother loaned me his Dune novel when I was about 12 years old. There’s a 1984 version of Dune directed by David Lynch that covers the whole book – whereas the 2021 Dune does not – but either version I enjoyed them both.
  6. Could you please clarify a few things in your post. (copied below in case the box quote doesn’t show the whole thing – your words are in bold green) You said: “When writing about the bible, and bringing supporting data to, at least, indicate it could be inaccurate, the beliver will scramble to plug the holes. They will expound on how much reading they have done, how open they are to new ideas, and then deny the ascertation exists.” Your statement is confusing to read – and seems contradictory; To me, it sounds like you’re trying to say when writing about the bible and bringing support data which at minimum shows the Bible could be inaccurate, the believer ( I’m assuming you mean Bible believer) will move quickly and awkwardly over difficult passages to plug the holes in _ _ _ _ _ A. logic B. inaccuracies of the Bible C. boreholes of weevils found in dust covered Bibles. D. all of the above E. none of the above ( I inserted multiple choice options because your statements are riddled with uncertainty and possibly unintended negations; remember, no cheating or copying someone else’s work) To help me better understand your point: 1. Perhaps the confusion comes from you not clearly identifying WHO is writing about the Bible. Are you referring to you or me – or both of us – or are you referring to someone else? 2. You state that the person writing about the Bible (whoever that is – remember you need to clarify that) brings support data which shows the Bible could be inaccurate. I am also confused on WHY the aforementioned “writer” brings support data to show the Bible could be inaccurate. Again, I ask - are you referring to something YOU did or will do? Or are you referring to something I did or will do, or something SOMEONE ELSE did or will do? I can’t speak for you – but as for me, since I left TWI, I’ve never been a big advocate for wierwille’s “the great accuracy and integrity of THE WORD and that it fits like a hand fits in a glove with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision.”. If I’ve been an advocate of anything it’s that my posts on Grease Spot support and recommend the honest, clear and natural interpretation of Scripture – warts and all – imperfections and inaccuracies galore! Not saying every passage is easy to understand – just saying I lean towards face value where possible and certainly don’t think my interpretation is the only viable option. You seem to be having an imaginary argument with no one in particular – or maybe you think you’re arguing with a person who still has the TWI-mindset. Did you bring data to this thread to support the idea that the Bible is inaccurate? Where is it? Please point it out to me. Regardless – you can put your mind at ease – and don’t waste your time scrambling to get a bunch of data. I’m not going to argue with you over that…That’s already a given. I believe the Bible is full of errors and inaccuracies – I thought that was obvious in my previous posts... You’re preaching to the choir here. 3. “the beliver will scramble to plug the holes” again, WHO are you addressing this accusation to? WHO is doing the scrambling? Please define “scrambling” as well. And WHAT holes are they plugging? You can refer to your multiple choice above. 4. “They will expound on how much reading they have done” – once again, WHO are you addressing? And WHAT have they been reading? WHAT does that have to do with the topic of this thread? Are you trying to tap dance around my previous posts? If so – relax – just be direct! No need to load your post with insinuations. Be open and honest. I was open and honest in what I said to you. In case you haven’t realized the purpose of this thread was an invitation / recommendation to read a book “Making Sense of the Bible”. I did “the assignment” and even fielded a few challenges from a Grease Spotter (you, specifically) who did NOT do “the assignment”. Okay so I was expounding – expound (verb) present and explain (a theory or idea) systematically and in detail; explain the meaning of (a literary or doctrinal work) (Microsoft Bing definition). Are your bummed out because you think I shot down your “owner’s manual” analogy? Hey, don’t take it personally. I said that was a powerful analogy – an analogy that was often used by wierwille and other TWI-leaders – I even used it myself. But like so many other erroneous concepts and interpretations generated by a pseudo-Christian cult, maybe it needs to be shot down. Through honest and critical analysis, the nonsensical plugs need to be removed to expose the twisted illogical and insidious self-serving holes in a cult’s theology/ideology. 5. “how open they are to new ideas” – this is an odd thing to say. Who are “they”? Being open to new ideas is a bad thing? You make it sound like it’s dangerous. That sounds like the manipulative…controlling…isolating tactics of TWI. As a STRICT RULE we were not supposed to think outside the theological/ideological box as defined by wierwille. That’s cult-tactics plain and simple – PERIOD - EXCLAMATION POINT ! You say you left TWI. Has the TWI-mindset left you? I don’t mean TWI theology – but the attitudes and way of looking at things. Why do you disparage new ideas? In cults conformity is encouraged as if it were a virtue. Individualism is frowned upon. Wanting to debate an issue or having a difference of opinion is a big no-no. Arguments (an exchange of diverging or opposite views) inside a cult like TWI are nonexistent because exchanging divergent or new ideas is not tolerated. Dissenters do not last long in TWI. Complexity is ignored. Black and white thinking is encouraged…actually more like it’s enforced – it’s either their way or the highway… I bet if a lot folks in TWI read Hamilton’s “Making Sense of the Bible” TWI just might lose a lot of followers – - - I think if you give someone real food for thought instead of slipping them a Mickey like wierwille’s Kool-Aid they just might jump at the chance to think for themselves and resume the driver’s seat in self-determination. You said in an earlier post “If the instructions were so poorly written, that thousands of interpretations were needed to make it functional, rational thinking people would discard it.” That seems like black and white thinking to me. Are you saying there’s only two categories? It appears you present only two types of folks. There are rational people - they base their thinking on or in accordance with reason or logic – and be advised the onus is on you to provide the definition of reason or logic – and let’s see if everyone interested in this thread can agree on some terms…Now - according to you these folks invariably discard the Bible at some point if it happens to cross their path. The other category in this dichotomy are irrational folks - people who do not discard the Bible – they are in this category by default – due to their lack of positive action rather than conscious choice – they failed to apply your definition of reason or logic – which now I am very interested in what your definition of logic or reason is...Are there examples of you using it on this thread? As it stands – that seems like a rather demeaning and dogmatic yet vague criterion for determining rationality. Is that your litmus test for how you measure up everyone in your world? Perhaps I’ve mischaracterized your viewpoint – feel free to correct me where I am wrong. More details and specifics would certainly help. 6. “and then deny the ascertation exists” - PERIOD - QUESTION MARK ? – not sure what you’re saying there – I Googled “ascertation” and got some 23,300 Results – at top of the page it said “Assertation vs Ascertation - What's the difference? | WikiDiff https://wikidiff.com/ascertation/assertation ascertation Not English Ascertation has no English definition. It may be misspelled. English words similar to 'ascertation': assertation, acieration, aggradation, acroterion, auguration, achrodextrin, aggeration”. So, if you could check your spelling, or reiterate / rephrase … to clarify your statement. If you were not trying to address me or the things I said in my previous posts then disregard all that I’ve said here in this post. I apologize for my misunderstanding and carry on. If you did mean to address me or the things in my posts – please don’t be too hasty in responding to this post. Perhaps we are talking past each other – “talking past each other is an English phrase describing the situation where two or more people talk about different subjects, while believing that they are talking about the same thing. The idiomatic expression is an allusion to the interaction between Thrasymachus and Socrates over the question of "justice" in Plato 's Republic I.” from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_past_each_other . at least that’s what it feels like on my end. I am hoping you can clarify things. I hope it is NOT a psychological projection issue, which “is the process of misinterpreting what is "inside" as coming from "outside". It forms the basis of empathy by the projection of personal experiences to understand someone else's subjective world. In its malignant forms, it is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against disowned and highly negative parts of the self by denying their existence in themselves and attributing them to others, breeding misunderstanding and causing untold interpersonal damage. A bully may project their own feelings of vulnerability onto the target, or a person who is confused may project feelings of confusion and inadequacy onto other people. Projection incorporates blame shifting and can manifest as shame dumping.” From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection . I could be wrong, but I get the feeling you might be projecting onto others some negative aspect of the TWI-mindset still inside you. For example, I said previously “if you like the lazy-boy-approach to having a discussion but don’t think it works as a deterrent to me breaking your arguments down point by point. It does mean more work for me – but I get off on the whole long-drawn-out process of thorough analysis”. In response to that, you said you have “been ridding myself of the belief that the bible is of any authority” . That is really an odd response since I have NOT attempted to bolster the authority of the Bible on this thread. I have been breaking down your arguments point by point – and I said nothing to support – or even TRY to support the authority of the Bible. Please point out in my previous posts where I have been debating you over the authority of the Bible. I challenged your application of modern concepts like "owner’s manual” and “prefaces” to ancient documents from other cultures , I challenged your opinion that God is the sole author of the Bible, I corrected your wrong assumption that I was trying to match my viewpoint with yours and in tandem with that I pointed out that it was your black and white thinking that renders you incapable of processing and understanding nuances and seeing obvious differences in concepts and semantics. If you would have read Hamilton’s “Making Sense of the Bible” you might have found out there’s much more to the Christian faith than wierwille’s dogmatic-pontificating-pretentious-hypocritical-manipulative-The Word-being-our-only-rule-for-faith-and-practice-bull$hit”…My faith is about a relationship with a person – Jesus Christ…about his Lordship…it’s not a relationship with the Bible, or how many books I’ve read or scrambling to plug the holes in the pseudo-scholarship of wierwille and submit to the lordship of a cult-leader…I’m free of that ball-and-chain mindset…and to reiterate it once again, what I DID challenge in the argument with you is the erroneous concept of the Bible being an “owner’s manual”… and for that matter any other crap from wierwille’s schtick like “the great accuracy and integrity of THE WORD and that it fits like a hand fits in a glove with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision” – what is all that manipulative pretentious stuff anyway – QUESTION MARK - - EXCLAMATION POINT ?! Insidious concepts that wierwille promoted to captivate and dominate followers. He was a master at cornering people with black and white thinking. “It’s either all God’s Word or it isn’t” – which for all practical purposes meant wierwille’s twisted interpretation of the Bible was the real authority. So please don’t project any of wierwille’s erroneous concepts onto me. …anyway…I look forward to your reply if you’d care to clear things up. Have a good evening.
  7. I figured that’s what you meant…makes me think of my kid days. Mom would put some icky vegetable like Lima beans or kidney beans on the table and I wouldn’t eat them. Dad goes you better eat some of that it’s good for you. I would grab a forkful and shove it in my mouth - not chew it - but swallow it quickly so I wouldn’t have to taste it as much. Then I’d gag or choke. He’d get on me and say chew your food. Geez - you give them an inch and they take a mile. perhaps this was a microcosm of those in power and big farma…I mean - has anyone done a study on the long term effects of eating Lima beans or kidney beans that these big farmas shove down our throats ?
  8. Same idea in the movie “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” The Dad really believed in the curative power of Windex The title of this YouTube clip lists the segment as Belief Perseverance My Big Fat Greek Wedding- Belief Perseverance
  9. Stayed too Long, I’m trying a different format to clear up the confusion and frustration I encounter when people quote my post and reply in it – even though they use a different font – bold and color – when I in turn quote that to follow up on the conversation it does not transfer your reply. You did that a lot on your thread of 41000 different Christian religions too. That’s fine if you like the lazy-boy-approach to having a discussion but don’t think it works as a deterrent to me breaking your arguments down point by point. It des mean more work for me – but I get off on the whole long drawn out process of thorough analysis anyway…besides – I’m trying this new stripped down format so I can quickly make my post and go. Some Grease Spotters like to jump right on a post while the editor is still fine tuning it. Oh well, $hit happens. Stayed Too Long's words are in quote box and they are green: I think the idea of an owner’s manual is a modern concept. But your point would be a fascinating study of how traditions, history, myths, religions, beliefs, knowledge, wisdom, etc. was disseminated and passed down to the next generation – from what little I know of big history I think that gets into so many aspects of the mind, human nature and how languages are developed –Steven Pinker has written some very interesting stuff about the mind, the language instinct, and the nature/nurture concept. so my short-answer-guess is that info was spread by word of mouth - see oral traditions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_tradition and of course writing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing I think your statement “Perhaps God, like any competent author would, have included a preface to the bible, that stated exactly why the bible was written and under what circumstances it is to be applied?” is also based on a modern literary concept – and as far as modern-day usage - usually prefaces are more commonly found in nonfiction books, but they can also be used in fiction. Another presumption in your statement is supposing that God is the sole author of the Bible. That’s certainly a viable option. I understand it more like the Bible was co-authored by God and humans – and it’s certainly up for debate as far as what details one can ascribe to God and what details are from us humans. The cosmology presented in Genesis 1 lacks the detail and accuracy from our modern viewpoint, but I think it’s more like a poem or an an ode to the Creator rather than a DVD-bonus-featurette-the-scientific-details-on-the-making-of-the heavens-and-the-Earth. That’s not to say there are no passages that clearly show God’s “writing” – there’s the 10 commandments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments that were supposedly written by the finger of God https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/9-10.htm ….. On the other hand, the topic of The Tabernacle / The Temple – seems to be such a big deal in God’s redemptive plan – with more than 50 long passages scattered throughout the Bible covering exact specifications, details, ceremonies, all imbued with rich symbolism and meaning, may represent a near perfect melding of co-authorship…This also could lead into a whole other tangent about what is revelation, illumination, inspiration, etc. and how that all works…To me, the human side of the Bible comes through loud and clear in all it’s imperfections and what I’d describe as temporal/cultural worldviews. That would be a good topic in doctrinal. Also the topic of philosophy of religion and how religions are developed or have evolved would be another interesting thread. Your statement might be a good indication of how we think differently. Some of the things you say hits me as black and white thinking – a pattern that makes people think in absolutes – to see things in extremes. Also called splitting, all or nothing thinking – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology) . I also noticed you did that on your thread 41000 different Christian religions - https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25078-41000-different-christian-religions/ - especially when we talked about magical thinking, law of believing, superstition and religious faith. You talked about them all as being basically the same thing whereas I said there were some obvious conceptual, semantical and nuanced differences with them all. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? It doesn’t matter – it’s just a discussion on Grease Spot. I try to be flexible in my approach to life – and try to use what I believe to be the best decision-making format – for lots of situations I view some things in shades of gray, or see more than two options. I’ll try to use common sense where applicable on which format to use. For example, is stealing okay? In my mind, that requires black and white thinking. Is stealing right or wrong? In my opinion it’s wrong. There’s no shades of gray – there’s no situation ethics allowed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics . what does all that have to do with your comment? Well, you responded to my post where I said “but I have a feeling the author’s point - and myself - are both probably closer to the sentiment of your previous post than you may think.” Maybe I was not clear enough - I was expressing the POSSIBILITY or UNCERTAINTY that the OPNION of myself and the author PROBABLY - as far as I can tell – are NOT THAT FAR APART from YOUR OPINION that the Bible is a very poorly written instruction manual; to simplify it even further, if the Bible was supposed to be an owner’s manual I agree with you – it was very poorly written. And going back to your post on Wednesday, where you said: Your argument has some flawed presumptions –- you’re assuming they should have been comparable to your concept of instructions, a modern concept i.e. owner’s manual – and as such the Bible is poorly written…you’re assuming thousands of interpretations were needed to “make it functional” , practical or useful. your reasoning is also faulty on that point too. Since the beginning of the Bible narrative there's been lots of "believers" in various faiths who have found its message useful and practical. Another name for folks like that is practitioners. There was no need to "make it functional" - the practice of their faith proved it was already functional...and I also ask you - is there value in finding meaning? Is there anything wrong with people who believe there is more to this life...this world than meets the eye? Is there anything wrong with wanting to explore the big questions of life? Is there anything wrong with believing one doesn't know it all and likes to hear about other perspectives? And I guess we need to define what makes something functional, practical or useful. Do you assume everyone who has ever followed the Bible as a matter of faith had the same expectations as we were led to look for in TWI? Is that the "normal" in your mind? I tend to think just the opposite: people who expect to get more out of Christianity than just Jesus Christ might be in for a major disappointment. That says a lot for The Way International - doesn't it? that money-grubbing hypocritical narcissistic organization. Their numbers are dwindling...they're scrounging for "leadership" to rise up and fill in the vacancies...yeah - compare their rate of retention to some other denominations and faiths - people living in poverty, persecuted, martyred...I'm surprised I stayed with those blood-suckers of TWI for 12 years - I should have figured it out pretty quick when I didn't see all the signs, miracles and wonders that they claimed followed believers. Given all that, you assume rational people would choose to discard it (all or nothing thinking). Your reference to “rational people” is interesting. I’m reminded of wierwille’s polarizing and manipulative tactics using passages like “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind” II Timothy 1:7 https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/1-7.htm wierwille would blather on about the difference between us (believers) and them (unbelievers) “we have the spirit of power, love and a sound mind. Unbelievers do not have a sound mind - and people, an unsound mind is an insane mind. And I didn’t write the book…” …so forth and so on – that’s how he’d tighten up the ranks. Using your criterion for determining who is rational – we would deem all theologians, pastors, Bible scholars, Christian counselors, Christian philosophers, practicing Christians (which includes schleps like me) as irrational. If you like to paint in such enormously broad strokes have at it. I was a fine arts major in college and fell in love with artists who were very attentive to detail and portrayed life more realistically like Vermeer. That is great! My journey has been dismantling the theological box I let wierwille construct in my head – no end of sentence – no period – it’s an ongoing project. My life continues to expand with a deeper meaning – not sure exactly what that is but it feels better than 34 years ago…when I die if there’s nothing after that - what a long strange trip this has been for all us saps. Ah yes, the old double-trick-question. You’re expecting me to choose out of all the different beliefs of Christian salvation to solve a double dilemma. Me being the let’s-really-look-into-every-option-kind-of-a guy, this could take several decades on Grease Spot and who knows how many generations of moderators – so I’ll cut to the chase: I’m putting my money on the ideas in “Love Wins” book by Bell – another interesting read for those who enjoyed Hamilton’s “Making Sense of the Bible”– too long to explain here so if you want to understand my reasoning you could check out that book too – besides I don’t like to waste my time on really frustrating, manipulative and convoluted hypotheticals. Again, that’s great for you! Soundness of logical systems is a beautiful thing. “In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is sound if it is both valid in form and its premises are true. Soundness also has a related meaning in mathematical logic, wherein logical systems are sound if and only if every formula that can be proved in the system is logically valid with respect to the semantics of the system. “ From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness I used to think of myself as a true believer…but now I tend to think of myself as a Christian Agnostic “Christian agnostics practice a distinct form of agnosticism that applies only to the properties of God. They hold that it is difficult or impossible to be sure of anything beyond the basic tenets of the Christian faith. They believe that God or a higher power might exist, that Jesus may have a special relationship with God, might in some way be divine, and that God might perhaps be worshipped. This belief system has deep roots in the early days of the Church.” From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_agnosticism
  10. Good one, Bolshevik - I had to look that word up...some folks drive me to drinkin' but you drive me to the dictionary...maybe that makes you an Uber. or we could go with the dictionary definition of uber - denoting an outstanding or supreme example of a particular kind of person...interesting relevance to eugenics - since uber is from a German word - the Nazis adopted the eugenics doctrine to justify their treatment of Jews, disabled people, and other minority groups...yikes !!!! did I just say that out loud ?!?! Is that political ?!?! sorry, Mods - it didn't occur to me until just now that Bolshevik may have been speaking in code....well, delete this post if you must ...I'm cool with that...I had my 15 minutes of posting fun! hey Bolshevik - just for the record if you happen to see this before it's annihilated , I meant you are an Uber in a nice way - a supersmart person ...and an excellent Uber driver for taking me to the dictionary.
  11. The reason I asked if you read the book is because the name of the first chapter in “Making Sense of the Bible” is “What the Bible is Not” and one of the first things Hamilton states is that the Bible “is definitely not written like an owner’s manual” and “is neither basic nor simply instructions for what to do before you die.” (Excerpts from page 8). And just for the record, I’m not trying to defend Hamilton’s book – but I have a feeling the author’s point - and myself - are both probably closer to the sentiment of your previous post than you may think. At the end of the chapter, after touching upon several popular concepts of the Bible, Hamilton says “I’d suggest that each of the above concepts about the Bible is flawed, and when the Bible is read while holding these assumptions the reader will at some point, become confused, misguided, or profoundly disappointed.” (From pages 9 & 10) And again, I’m not trying to defend or soft-sell the book – but that owner’s manual concept that he shoots down in the first chapter of the book really struck a nerve with me. I read Hamilton’s book in 2020 – some 34 years after leaving TWI – and probably like a lot of ex-TWI folks it’s been a long and arduous personal journey extricating myself from the fundamentalism-spiritualism-Gnosticism-mindset of TWI. I’ve had a career as a technician for most of my adult life – referring to installation & user manuals comes with the territory as well as being contracted to write technical manuals/documentation and even write user manuals and create how-to-videos for technically challenged CEOs. I think the most important requirements for any technical instructions/owner’s manual should be that they are clear and precise. A direction of “plug the cable into the appropriate port” leaves a lot to be desired and can leave a lot to the imagination of a wisecracking technician...and while I think the Bible is a very profound and inspirational book - it is definitely NOT clear and precise on just about everything - and so lends itself very easily to a wide variety of interpretations. In my opinion it deals with metaphysical truth and not scientific truth. Scientific truth is clear and precise like H2O - that's how to make water in a chemistry set owner's manual. Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality (Wikipedia def.). According to online Britannica truth in metaphysics and the philosophy of language is the property of sentences, beliefs thoughts, or propositions that agree with the facts or state what is actually the case. Metaphysics is philosophical and tries to explain the fundamental nature of the world and what it means for us living in this world. metaphysical questions might be "how did water begin to exist? did some supreme being call it into existence?" There are no clear and precise answers for questions like that. One of the first things I threw out of my critical-thinking-tool-kit was wierwille’s “the Bible interprets itself”…what an affront to logic, linguistics, historians, sociologists, anthropologists, and philosophers – not to mention Bible scholars, translators and textual researchers. The Bible is a compilation of 66 different books written by some 40 different authors over the course of an approximately 1500-year period, using basically 3 different languages, spanning a variety of cultural, political, and geographical settings. Needless to say, wierwille's idea that the Bible interprets itself is silly...absurd...laughable...and I can't believe I actually bought into it at one point in my life. In my defense I will say I was young and naïve back then…critical thinking schmitical thinking! I’ve said this elsewhere (and let me be clear and precise on where it was - - it was here > Can a true believer change his mind? ) that if it wasn't for all the atheists, agnostics, as well as other viewpoints I've encountered on Grease Spot Café – I would probably still harbor a fundamentalism/spiritualism/Gnosticism mindset – even though I was out of TWI and didn't get involved with another ministry or church. I have a lot of respect and admiration for all the atheists and agnostics that I have debated with for keeping it real – which inspired me to try and be more honest and open...helping me unravel the nature of a belief system...often providing very compelling reasons for me to stay grounded in the plain and simple interpretation of Scripture...and I really admire their bare-bones approach to life in the here-and-now – genuinely appreciating our family and friends and doing things just because it's the right thing to do and not because of some eternal reward. Stayed Too Long, I think it would be great if you would share your journey on a thread I started Concerning the Bible confessions of a former fundamentalist - folks that have posted there represent a pretty wide spectrum of viewpoints – everything is cool – the only time that thread got a little dicey was when one Grease Spotter tried to debate another Grease Spotter over administrations – one still held to what TWI said about them and the other person didn’t believe in them at all. It was kind of a free-for-all for a bit but then settled down after everyone figured out the thread wasn’t a doctrinal debate – but more like a potluck dinner for Grease Spotters to express their current view of the Bible with no fear of being judged or criticized – whether their view of the Bible was now good or bad – whatever – or folks don’t have to say anything about the Bible – it’s just a chance for folks to express why there was a change in their viewpoint or why they left or drifted away from TWI’s view of the Bible – ideally what I had in mind was something like a documentary on ex-TWI-followers where folks tell of their journey out and away from TWI – and hopefully any exchange between folks would be respectful and honest.
  12. Stayed Too Long, that is a powerful analogy ! Did you come up with that after reading Adam Hamilton’s “Making Sense of The Bible”?
  13. Did someone say Mandalorian ? Every time he comes to Grease Spot he says “this is the way” I say “no, this is Grease Spot” Baby Yoda says "in depth spiritual perception and awareness you are not"
  14. “ I bet you wrote like that when you were in twi to justify not leaving ??” Honestly – this statement makes no sense and serves no purpose other than being another personal attack rather than addressing the points I brought up…and oddly enough you speak to some imaginary opponent – I can’t say for sure until you answer some of the questions I posed - twice now: What programs did you participate in and what responsibilities did you have up until the time you left TWI? How long were you in TWI ? What was your age when you left? Why did you leave? Did you join an offshoot? Please try to be honest and accurate – remember Twinky is reading this thread too And for the record I will say that the way I think and write here on Grease Sport is diametrically opposed to how I was trained to think and write in the way corps – I’ve recalled here on many threads about my time in-residence being extremely laser-focused on knowing The Power For Abundant Living class material backwards and forwards. No exaggeration !!!!!!! During the three meals we had each day in the dining room, we were randomly called upon to give a five minute teaching - right there on the spot – and immediately critiqued right after that. Even back then I was disturbed by one fact - that people who quoted PFAL material verbatim or with very little deviation from that, received the highest praise with little or no criticism... In preparation for doing our research papers, one day LCM was pounding on the podium and bellowing out “Don’t try to reinvent the wheel – base your research paper on something from PFAL” …if that’s how you imagine I think and write NOW on Grease Spot – you are grossly mistaken !!!! Your powers of discernment are zilch ! I guess you’ve never been in the way corps program to say something really stupid like that. Of course, I don’t know that for sure – until you answer those questions I asked earlier. So, for now I’ll give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you haven’t been through the way corps program. And just to give you an idea for comparison of how I thought and wrote when I was in TWI – just open any one of wierwille’s books – when I was in TWI I was very disciplined and prided myself on reigning in any what TWI might label five-senses-worldly-logic-unbeliever-type rogue thoughts, essay concepts, teaching ideas which were contrary to what is in PFAL…so for all practical purposes I was a carbon copy of wierwille. anyone who is even vaguely familiar with PFAL would see the stark difference between the PFAL material/TWI’s belief system/wierwille’s prognosticating and pontificating bull$hit and what I say here on Grease Spot. I don’t know anything about you really…so maybe you’re just not familiar with PFAL, wierwille, LCM or the TWI-mindset…but that seems silly to me because you come across as having that same cult-like mindset I had while I was in TWI and it was heavily reenforced in the way corps program – with a predilection for conspiracy theories, logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and anything that makes one feel they have superior knowledge compared to the masses. Now if you are familiar with the way corps program – because you went through it – well then that makes me think there’s a deeper issue that needs to be addressed…and let me say this – there’s no pressure here – currently I’m not really expecting to have an open and honest dialog with you at this discussion table – so don’t feel like you have to actually answer my questions or help clarify or correct my current take on you. The reason I’ve been putting my half-a-cent on this thread is for any disenchanted way corps out there who read Grease Spot. Matter of fact, my primary target audience on Grease Spot is disenchanted way corps - whether or not they’re still active in TWI – and more specifically they all have a strong sense of disillusionment derived from the failure of TWI / the way corps program to fulfill its declared goals - and the perception of inconsistencies between the actions of certain TWI-leaders and the ideals they supposedly represent. These folks are my primary target audience because I understand and share similar feelings. The only big unresolved problem they may still have, is that they have not yet fully come to terms with the toxic legacy of wierwille… From my own experience and in talking with other disenchanted way corps I’ve noticed in leaving an abusive, deceitful and exploitative organization like The Way International we have to deal with grief and loss. I’ve found there are two well-known models for dealing with grief and loss. One is from Elisabeth Kübler-Ross a Swiss-American psychiatrist and a pioneer in near-death studies. She theorized there were 5 stages of grief but her studies were with people who were dying (terminally ill), not people who were grieving over the loss of a loved one. In her 1969 book “On Death and Dying” she proposed the 5 stages of grief and loss: 1. Denial and isolation, 2. Anger, 3. Bargaining, 4. Depression, and 5. Acceptance…I think there is some merit to her work although there’s a strong consensus among psychologists that people who are grieving over any kind of loss do not necessarily go through the stages in the same order or experience all of them. Another model is from George Bonanno. His research is noted for contradicting Kübler-Ross’ 5 stages of grief. As a professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University, he conducted more than two decades of scientific studies on grief and trauma, which have been published in several papers of peer-reviewed journals in the field of psychology. His studies came out of several thousand subjects and included people who have suffered losses in the U.S. and cross-cultural studies in various countries around the world. His subjects suffered losses through war, terrorism, deaths of children, premature deaths of spouses, sexual abuse, childhood diagnoses of AIDS, and other potentially devastating loss events or potential trauma events – such as losing a job, or one of the parents losing custody of a child through divorce, loss of a romantic relationship, loss of a pet, losing faith in one’s religion. Bonanno’s findings indicate that natural resilience is a part of the human psyche, and that there are four possible paths one could take in dealing with grief and loss. Folks can get a little better idea of these two models as well as some other theories of dealing with grief and loss at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grief sorry for the 20 minutes of your life that my post forced you to waste…maybe you could work on your speed-reading and comprehension skills …or just simply ignore my posts… don’t you just love the freedom we have here? Unlike the contrived and stifling conversations, we had in TWI? Everyone parroting what wierwille established as truth. Those crippling-mind-numbing-habits I adopted while in TWI were never about exploring my faith, the Bible nor was it about expanding spiritual awareness…most folks like me never dared to challenge wierwille’s ideology...if wierwille was still alive today I wonder what he'd have to say about the pandemic and vaccines...yeah, I remember him saying cancer was a devil spirit. ...oh yeah I bought into all his bull$hit...I was a self-described flunky through and through …the way corps mindset was mostly about clinging to closed-minded ideas, keeping an eye out for devil spirits lurking behind every tree and those damn commies …illuminati…wrong-seed boys…lions, and tigers and bears oh my …I imagined wierwille had his spiritual finger on the pulse of what’s really going on politically in our country and around the world…yup - and loyalists like me conforming to his values and ethics, I was always preoccupied with busywork as a distraction to real thinking and awareness...I was stuck in a stifling subculture where people related to each other only superficially through contrived interpersonal skills...we all were an odd conglomerate of mostly well-meaning but misguided idealists cobbled together to loosely form a single self-serving entity – The Way International… Does any of this sound familiar? I don’t mean as a former follower of TWI. I ask that of anyone who subscribes to conspiracies theories. The mindsets bear an uncanny resemblance. I mean the a priori assumptions seem to be almost identical: reasoning and knowledge based on theoretical nonsense - disregarding facts and disparaging observation and experience, logic, science and experts in specific fields. but hey, enough about me…this has been another public service message to disenchanted way corps and probably doesn’t concern you…anyway…see you around – or not – it doesn’t matter – it’s just a discussion – as you said: “ At the end of the day, it's all debate about whether the vax is more beneficial or harmful in the mid to long term…” yup – keep calm and carry on.
  15. His attempts to inject politics into this discussion appears to be a recurring problem. Earlier on this thread he posted a video of Dr. Seheult talking about vitamin D – and then he challenged a specific group of people “Please, all you "In big pharma we trust" followers, please, pick this apart and show me where this guy is wrong AND I will go get my jab tomorrow !!!!!” see here: Being familiar with Dr. Seheult’s other informative videos on vaccines, viruses and therapeutics I decided to watch this one because the way he phrased his challenge to pick it apart gave me the impression that Dr. Seheult has now changed his position on vaccines. But after watching the ENTIRE video, I was puzzled as to where he got the idea that Dr. Seheult was dismissive of vaccines and/or advocated vitamin D as an alternative to the vaccine. So, I responded to him with three questions: 1. why did you address your challenge of picking apart the video to "In big pharma we trust" followers? (Now if this was a dare to concoct the most outlandish counterargument to getting the vaccine, I would have to say congratulations on your powers of irrelevant thinking and confirmation bias! You win the challenge of that dare! Seriously though – this argument is based on a relevance fallacy.) 2. Did you watch the video all the way through yourself? And 3. What do you think was the point of his video? In my response I also included links to a couple of other Dr. Seheult’s interviews where he was very clear on the effectiveness of 4 vaccines, the use of other therapeutics in tandem with vaccines a even a snapshot of the protracted historical timeline of how long it takes to develop vaccines (which gave me a better perspective and appreciation of how the current vaccines were fast-tracked but certainly not the final or definitive pronouncement of the war on covid-19 is over) and I ended my comments by relating my story of being subjected to a conspiratorial-political-science-denying-soliloquy by another patient in the doctor’s office waiting room – since my policy is usually never to discuss politics and religion with strangers – especially if they bring it up – I kept my cool and let this guy ramble and rant about his conspiratorial-political-nonsense – I just sat there and looked at my phone - giving him no indication that I was upset, bothered or agreed with him - and figured if he decides to get violent at least we’re in the doctor’s office so emergency medical response should be fairly quick …I was done with cult-talk and a cult-mindset a long time ago - - in my post here: To which I received very odd replies: in case the 2nd quote is not expanded - here it is in full: “The Doctor is also VERY smart. He knows that IF he came out and dismissed the covid vaccine and/or stated vitamin D as an alternative to the covid vax, he would be struck off the medical register and very likely be charged with an offence, not to mention the leftie media and other nut job covid cultists on him like blowflies on a fresh cow patty. How about it (said in an exxagerated VPW tone LMAO)” These are some of the most fascinating posts for understanding conspiracy theorists and a harmful and controlling cult-like mindset: Conspiracy theory: “A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy; instead, it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, such as an opposition to the mainstream consensus among those people (such as scientists or historians) who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy.” from: Wiki - conspiracy theory Mindset: “In decision theory and general systems theory, a mindset is a set of assumptions, methods, or notions held by one or more people or groups of people. A mindset can also be seen as arising out of a person's world view or philosophy of life. A mindset may be so firmly established that it creates a powerful incentive within these people or groups to continue to adopt or accept prior behaviors, choices, or tools. The latter phenomenon is also sometimes described as mental inertia, "groupthink", and it is often difficult to counteract its effects upon analysis and decision making processes. In cognitive psychology, a mindset represents the cognitive processes activated in response to a given task (French, 2016).” from: Wiki - mindset “A mindset is a belief that orients the way we handle situations—the way we sort out what is going on and what we should do. Our mindsets help us spot opportunities, but they can also trap us in self-defeating cycles. This essay isn’t about all the beliefs we might hold. It is about the beliefs that make a difference in our lives—the beliefs that distinguish people who are successful at what they do versus those who continually struggle. The Stanford University psychologist Carol Dweck (2006) popularized the idea of mindsets by contrasting different beliefs about where our abilities come from. If we have a fixed mindset and think that our ability is innate, then a failure can be unsettling because it makes us doubt how good we are. In contrast, if we have a growth mindset, then we expect that we can improve our ability—and a failure, therefore, shows us what we need to work on. People with a fixed mindset are out to prove themselves, and may get very defensive when someone suggests they made a mistake—in other words, they measure themselves by their failures. People with a growth mindset, on the other hand, often show perseverance and resilience when they’ve committed errors—they become more motivated to work harder. You can imagine how much having a fixed or growth mindset can affect our lives.” from: Psychology Today: seeing what others don't I am inclined to think that conspiracy theories and a harmful and controlling cult-like mindset are often intertwined – I say this as I call to mind wierwille’s Advanced Class – he was a master at knitting together conspiratorial-spiritual- political-machinations-nonsense and those of us who esteemed him as the truly-enlightened-one-of-god-and-the-New-Knoxville-Gnostic-and-the-only-one-having-the-inside-scoop-for-this-day-and-time-and-hour bought into it all ! So in return I asked HOW did he know that in this post: In response to my post, he resorts to vulgar-high-school-style-insults saying he recognized TWI was a cult while I was still licking LCM’s jockstrap – which I thought was odd but interesting for several reasons – besides being a fallacious personal attack against me (ad hominem fallacy) instead of attacking the actual issue– he also attempts to promote another lie - which I underlined in this quote - he says "I recognized TWI as a cult whilst you were still licking LCM's jockstrap, so that's a pretty weak argument lol. You and others have not yet made the 'connection' ...have you ?! What were TWI's three tenets of belief, their driving motive ?? MONEY, POWER, CONTROL = CULT....Big Pharma/Government ? MONEY, POWER, CONTROL...you're IN the covid cult and you do not even realise it !! Oh, and as for Dr. Seheult....look at the TIMELINE of his videos and what he is saying two years ago compared to things he has changed his stance on (sorry Twinks, you arse umed wrong) ...again.” …you can see his post here: again, you’ll notice the conspiratorial-theory-effort to push politics and to accuse me of being in a covid cult…and to add doubt and confusion he says to check the timeline on Dr. Seheult’s position…well – no need for me to do that – I’m very familiar with what he said when, and do not find anything contrary to what he has said in the links I’ve posted earlier – matter of fact, here’s a few more to indicate his stance on the vaccine – here are some excerpts of an interview and associated links below them: “The decision to get vaccinated in a pandemic is not a decision out of nothing. The situation is calling for it. It’s either you get vaccinated or get the infection.” – Dr. Roger Seheult “The fact that we don’t have polio or smallpox today is a direct consequence of ancestors in this country and around the world. They decided on taking a vaccine to eliminate those diseases. We’ve effectively done that when we started to say that a vaccine is a choice for me.” – Dr. Roger Seheult “We don’t know the long-term effects of vaccines because these effects would usually appear within the first two to three months. But having the virus has long-term effects, too. A study shows that some athletes still had signs of myocarditis after a mild or asymptomatic bout of COVID-19. … In vaccines’ case, it works because it allows our bodies to develop immunity against COVID-19. What most do not know is that anti-COVID vaccines contain attenuated protein from the virus itself. This prepares our immune system for what’s coming and [to] be ready for it with antibodies.” – Dr. Roger Seheult “Do we know the long-term side effects of the vaccine? No, we don’t until … a long time, but we don’t know the virus’s long-term side effects either. But that may be different if somebody has horrible allergic reactions and anaphylaxis. I would not advise getting the vaccine because you’re at high risk for getting another allergic reaction. That’s a medical risk-benefit ratio” – Dr. Roger Seheult On herd immunity the interviewer said this about Dr. Roger’s stance on vaccines: “Dr. Roger believes that at this time, the best weapon that we have against COVID-19 is herd immunity. However, he explained that our hospitals and health system’s current situation is not enough for the needs of the infected people. In order to achieve herd immunity, we need the support of the vaccine to get there.” from: podcast: facts about vaccines and improving immunity podcast: use this science to boost immune system podcast: facts about improving immunity Personally, I do not take issue with this poster saying he realized TWI was a cult before I did. That may very well be true – but a matter that could be settled pretty quickly if he would reply to what I asked him in my next post; in it I asked a few simple questions: What programs did you participate in and what responsibilities did you have up until the time you left TWI? How long were you in TWI ? What was your age when you left? Why did you leave? Did you join an offshoot? I’m looking forward to his response to my questions - and I’m assuming he will be honest and accurate since Twinky said she already knows the answers but is letting him tell his story. Just for the record – I am not disputing he may have realized TWI was a cult long before I did. What I am suggesting is the possibility that even though he may have left a cult before me, many of his posts on this thread seem to indicate a cult-like mindset has never left him. Someone remarked how different Grease Spot is from TWI. True that! These are open discussions – anyone can air their viewpoint and opinions. I don’t care what folks bring to the table – hopefully it’s something useful…but it does get old when someone brings table scraps and leftovers from wierwille’s Advanced Class and conspiracy theorists. an old proverb comes to mind - people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones – meaning people who are vulnerable to criticism should not criticize others, especially not for the faults that they themselves have since such criticism will likely be returned. From: The Free Dictionary on idiom of people who live in glass houses
  • Create New...