Twinky

And now he resorts to name-calling. You just demonstrated how you've lost it, Mike. May I call you "Mr Procrastinator"?

MIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Speak English. Your stupid "digital decision" might be what others would call "a quick decision." Your stupid "analog decision" might be what others would call "a considered decision." People understand those terms. They don't understand your choice of weird terminology.

Just to bring things back, Mike has spent FIVE PAGES avoiding answering this, from page 1, that he keeps claiming he has no time to deal with. See how he's once again managed to shift the conversation from "empathy" to his pet, the collaterals. Some might think that his refusal to address the quoted post shows ... a lack of empathy.

What's this business of comparing one version of the collaterals with some other version? That's akin to comparing bull manure with heifer manure. Have you considered comparing the collaterals with what the Bible says on a subject? And I don't mean just looking at the words of, and occasional verses noted in, the collateral kid's-essay, but at the depth of what the Bible says about a topic. Which will include very, very much more material than in a few badly written pages of a kid's-essay.

"Digital Decision"? "Analog Decision"? What the f*** is that supposed to mean? And NO, I don't want a Mikean answer. Mike, just bloody well use proper English. Stop inventing phrases to disguise what you mean / so as to appear more ?intelligent ?intellectual ?erudite / because you want to confuse things further. Try choosing normal English expressions. Then nobody will have to keep asking you questions - oh wait, that is what you want... to be the centre of attention. [A few minutes later] Oh lordy me. And now he's abbreviating his bizarre wording. Now I see "DD decision" (=?digital decision decision?) just to be even more confusing. Speak English, Mike. Or Chinese, if you like. But be coherent.

Mike, I didn't say that AT ALL. Learn to read.

VPW put his name to all the collaterals, whether or not anyone else contributed to them. It's his name on all the books. No-one else has attribution. Ps 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, And give thanks unto thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Or, in the MikeBible: Mike will worship towards the VPW auditorium, and give thanks unto VPW's name for his {???} and for his "truth": For Mike has magnified VPW's word above all VPW's name. And that's not idolizing VPW?

I like his enthusiasm. Perhaps many of us were as enthusiastic, too, when we first learned of God's goodness. Please don't let this keen newbie remain in the state of delusion too long. Hope Oldies can redirect him.

I just posted a lengthy post about empathy. I am intrigued how Mike might respond. (a) He will read bits only, and say it's too long (b) He will accuse me of being a "Corps Nazi" and thereby prove my point (c) He will ignore the whole thing - thereby also proving my point (d) He will take a fragment and use it to go off in some completely random direction (e) He will read, acknowledge, and agree that he does not show empathy for others here Of these, seems to me that (e) is the least probable outcome.

Mike on another thread is determined that we should see him as "empathetic." Right. Really. What's empathy? Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference, that is, the capacity to place oneself in another's position.[1] Definitions of empathy encompass a broad range of social, cognitive, and emotional processes primarily concerned with understanding others (and others' emotions in particular). Types of empathy include cognitive empathy, emotional (or affective) empathy, somatic empathy, and spiritual empathy.[2][3][4] [Wikipedia] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy (In nice big font, Mike, so that you can't miss it.) The article is lengthy, so it may take you some time to read, but you may learn quite a lot from it. Here's another much shorter article. Please read it, Mike. And carefully watch the video at the end (and learn from it). https://takealtus.com/2020/06/empathy-1/ Why is that relevant to this thread? Because Mike persists in shrieking about "Nazi Corps" without ever thinking about how much some people have given to enter the Corps program; what it has cost them physically, emotionally, in relationships; in other opportunities. Without doubt everyone tried their best to do the program as directed. Unfortunately, that included being stomped on from great height, repeatedly, for the most minor infractions - and for that same behaviour to be mimicked by trainees (in rez Corps). The joy of service and the enthusiasm for service was crushed nearly out of existence, for many of the "Nazi Corps." And who "Nazi'd" them? The man who set up the program. So in condemning "Nazi Corps" Mike is, in effect, condemning VPW, the man who had empathy for none and understood none who had empathy for others. Now he has a different target in his sights: Charlene. Charlene, who as a young woman, heard the word and received it with joy. It filled her heart with enthusiasm and she wanted more and more of it. In Mikeology, she "snapped." Because she didn't hang around for 20 years "thinking about it" before she made a decision to follow the Lord (except, unfortunately, it wasn't the Lord but the Liar that she followed). Mike condemns her for this. She was too hasty. I wonder what he knows of her circumstances, that made this choice attractive to her? Where's his empathy for Charlene? Did I miss something? Mike, how long did the first disciples take before they joined Jesus on his mission? Did they take 20 years? Or did they hear, make a quick decision, and leave their nets and follow him? Gave up their businesses and their previous lives, and went with someone they'd come to trust because he spoke of the God they longed to know? Did they "snap," too? What about Lydia in Acts 16? She immediately received the word and set about witnessing to others, her whole household, and wanted Paul to stay with her. Did she "snap"? Paul writes very well of her later and she did much to fund his ministry. What about the jailor that Paul and Silas witnessed to when they were falsely imprisoned? Verse 34 tells us "The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household." Did the jailor "snap"? There are many records in the book of Acts where it appears people were able to make a quick and lifechanging decision to follow the Lord. Mike, just because you can't make a quick decision, doesn't mean that you have any right to condemn those who did. And just because you have zero empathy for anyone else, doesn't give you any right to condemn or criticise anyone else. Go walk in someone else's shoes for days, weeks, months, or even 20 years. Come back and tell us if you learned anything.

Who here cares if it's the 80th anniversary? Mike maybe; Johniam? Nobody else. Personally I'm shocked that after all these years this sham of a religious organisation is still hanging around (though fading away) after 80 years. I suppose they'll be having their NY Eve "watchnight" event to celebrate the new year. Or more acc'rately, to celebrate the founder's birthday.

Could be, Bolshe. But it could be that there are genuine people who truly want to serve God and succeed (despite TWI). I have known some truly awesome Corps, wonderful people. I can't say that I've met any truly awesome Revs, though. Well - not in TWI. Plenty outside TWI. I'm forgiving Mike the "extremely blessed" terminology. He probably doesn't know a better way to put it. I suspect he means "genuinely helped" or something along that line.

I think this is the single most intelligible post I've ever read from Mike. As to the rest of that long post -pfft!

Soccer, what's that? Oh, do you mean FOOTBALL? Why do Americans call it such a silly name? Anyway, I hear Argentina won, worthily so. And France got their nose pushed out of joint. Exciting at the end, I gather. Is that it for four more years?

Okay, while we're in "Another Take" land, here's a different view of King David. I know one person here will object, because it looks at academic and scholarly sources! (How dare it!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David

No, I gave only one example, one commonly known to GSC residents. There are many other records of men having multiple, contemporary, wives. It's what men did. It doesn't anywhere say that it is right with God except in context of preserving the name of a deceased male.

If one cares to read in the OT, there's very good reasons why a man was permitted to have more than one wife. In one particular case, it was where a man had died without issue (probably, without having a son). His brother was to marry the widow. (1) The first child then born of that union would be credited to the deceased brother, to keep his name in Israel and to inherit his portion of the land. (2) The widow would also be provided for - remember, no widows' pension arrangements in the OT. Remember the story of Onan - who "cast his seed on the ground"? I'll let you "research" or even just plain re-read that. And the man's "duty" to his second or subsequent wives was to be exactly the same as to the first wife. She was not to lack food, raiment or care - specifically, sexual pleasure. (Certainly in modern Judaism, did you know that sexual satisfaction is considered to be the right of the wife - not the right of the husband?) David married his second wife, Abigail, wife of Nabal the Carmelite, who had just dropped dead, to protect her in a time when women had few protections. Don't know why he married the others - lust? political unions? I have no idea how he could provide equally for al his wives, much less his unfortunate concubines. And just because he had all these women, don't be thinking for one second that that was God-sanctioned. God's idea is one man with one wife. Says that at the beginning of the bible, and is repeated in the epistles.

Do your own bloody research. Don't you have a concordance?

Please give advanced warning. I don't have any of that stuff any more. Chucked it all in the woodburner. I don't want to see it again.

My country coordinator played guitar and composed songs. She used to sing one, in particular, which was very touching. Sang it at HQ, where it was immediately pounced on by LCM, who basically stole it, changed some of the wording, accredited to Way Pubs or some such, and gave it to M1ke M@rtin to sing. CC didn't get any acknowledgement, no thanks, no nuthin'. She graciously said it was okay, but I could tell she was disappointed (?) at never being acknowledged or thanked.

The salt covenant thing was a big trip in being guilted out. Salt covenant when you are graduated into the WC; again when you get Rev'd (OldSkool, correct me if I'm wrong here). That was after months or years of being taught how unbreakable the salt covenant was. So how much does that play into fulfilling some pseudo-religious duty?

We could do with a haha bit at the side, not just arrows and hearts.

Kinda like "Listening with a Purpose" but for adults.

I've posted something of the following previously, but it was a while ago and not on this thread. The radio program that I mostly listen to has, or used to have, a programme between two people of diametrically opposite views, often about quite controversial subjects. It was a series, with different people and different areas of argument, each week. The first party, let's say A, had about 10 mins to state their case, during which the other, let's say B, could not interrupt. I think they could ask limited questions afterwards to clarify, but not to argue. Then B presented their PoV, again without interruption (and if B got to ask a few questions of A, then A got to ask a few questions of B). But argument as such was not allowed; participants could not say the other was wrong. And then, A and B had to summarise the view of B and A. Each other party could say whether they thought their viewpoint had been properly summarised, and if not, why not. Usually, the summaries were accepted as reasonably accurate about the other party's PoV. Finally, A and B were both asked if the discussion had caused them to change or moderate their own view. And in every case, they said hearing the other party's view had caused them to consider things they hadn't before. Nobody, as far as I know, changed their mind, but they all moved to a more middle place than they had been previously. Listen with interest to what others say, people. They just might have a point, or something you can learn from.

Get a life, Mike. Please. For your own sake. Get a life. Get a life of genuine service to the community and see what you learn. I'm done with you. I can't be bothered to meander through your puerile ponderings any more. You make as much sense as - as catching feathers in the wind. As much sense as considering the difference in the grains of sand in a cup of sand from the beach. Go and get involved in real community work. Volunteer at a night shelter, the local cats and dogs home, or the local litter pick. You could choose a different charitable work to get involved in every day. Do something more than once; do it several times a week for a sustained period of six months at least. Do something genuinely worthwhile. And then come back and preach at us (if you really must).