So_crates

2 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

It plainly does not say that. Viewing scripture through the collaterals isn't what I'm talking about. But who cares at this point...do what u do.

That's Mike's private interpretation.

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

I have posted several times on 3 different SNT tapes I heard VPW say things like that.   It took me years to understand them.  I posted on this fairly recently also.

You mean you rationalized. I'm always suspicious when someone has to do mental gymnastics to explain a point.

19 minutes ago, Mike said:

Yeah.  It's ALMOST saying the same thing twice. 
One saying relates to the Word being issued,
and the other relates to the Word being absorbed.

The issuer is forbidden to attach a private nuance to the message.

The implication is clear that the absorber is similarly forbidden.

*/*/*/*

It is a settled issue to me. 

In order for a scripture to be valuable it has to be the clean and pure Word from God, and not contaminated by personal perspectives of humans who happen to write it or read it. 

IF it is the case that the scripture grammar does not allow this, then it should be recognized as self-evident.

 

The Bible is OF no private interpretation, and the Bible is FOR no private interpretation. 

 

Besides, in 1968 it was very stylish for people to "do your own thing," and for me to hear VPW teach back then that I should not absorb the Bible in a private, personal way was good advice.  

 

 

Even though Saint Vic had his own private interpretation of the bible? Witness what happened to the adultery paper. Witness Penworks book illuminating how Saint Vic used the bible to back up whatever principle he wanted to use to control the masses.

No private interpretation. Yah, sure. That's why Saint Vic said,"I know there's a manuscript out there somewhere supporting this, we just haven't found it."

1 hour ago, chockfull said:

They won’t respond.  From their view they have corrected the error with the latest believers family class where they define adultery as wrong and things in standard Christian fashion.

They will never admit past wrongs as that would open them up for litigation.

They will whitewash, ignore and move on.  The next generation know nothing of the sins of the past generation and pretty much don’t care.

 More's the pity. Those who don't remember the past are doomed to relive it.

On 2/16/2016 at 4:47 PM, DontWorryBeHappy said:

Hi All!

My 2 cents FWIW...... I think that entire rap about the drunk showing up at choich, whether invented or real, is part of a subtle thread which runs throughout piffle. It's like the red thread. What is it? An attempt by vic to pre-emptively mitigate the accusations which had been thrown at him effectively before this filming project in late 1967. Namely that, vic was a drunk and a "womanizer". These went as far back as Van Wert and were definitely part of why the UCC dangcanned him. They fired him and then he wrote his "resignation" letter in August, 1956 or 57.

Upon moving it all back to the family farm where he grew up in New Knoxville, the locals, who couldn't stand young vic when he lived among them, were not shaking their heads that the boy was fired by the Church for drinking and carousing with his young secretary Rhoda Beckett, a Mennonite from NY, along with others in his congregation. The "rumors" were quite effective because first of all, they were factual, and secondly, the NK residents were quite well aware of vic's varied peccadilloes while he terrorized the town's girls and bullied the boys. So, when he returned to the family farm after being fired by the UCC, H.E. bought up the shares of the other siblings, and he was back home facing the reputation he had made for himself as a young man in town and the rumors, which everyone knew were true, of why the church fired him. And so the feud was rekindled and continues today even though no wierwilles are left in twit.

Piffle was filmed in Dayton. The biggest fellowships were in Troy, Xenia, and several towns surrounding New Knoxville like Sidney and St. Mary's. Vic's church along with all the whispers about the fired UCC guy who had his own church now. The rumors never stopped and now followed him wherever he went. So, he constantly did everything he could to squelch, deny, and minimalize the rumors even in piffle. Examples? The drunk story. Vic was a boozer since high school. Everybody knew it. He'd get dangfaced and race his motorcycle all over the place doing "tricks" and scaring people. He was the prankster, practical joker who consistently ....ed people off. The NKers knew all this. So did Shelby and auglaize county sheriffs. So, the whole drunk story was throw in there not to teach grace but rather to obviate vic's "license to sin" practice of grace. How did he respond to the drunk guy incident? He became one! But, we don't need to confront him. We need to love and forgive him by god's grace just like vic

Did for the drunk and like Jesus does for you. "That's the living thing to do."

Then, in that section in Acts where he's "handling" Paul's thorn in the flesh. Remember? "Whaddya think his back looked

like? Whaddya think his back looked like? Why some even accused the great Apostle Paul of being a sex pervert! A sex pervert! Imagine that? Well I'd sure as heck would need to be absolutely sure I was right before I'd lay something like that at the feet of the greatest apostle in the first century church! That's riiight! A sex pervert! Lordy Pete!". Sound familiar? Interesting he'd throw that one specific charge in there that is NOT recorded anywhere in scripture. Again, a pre-emotive strike to obviate the other FACT about Vic that followed him his whole life. A drunken molester of women and a bully. And, the pre-emptive obviating was quite effective all through the 70's. But, then the facts caught up with them all, and down fell the cradle, baby and all. Vic was ALWAYS on alert. But the young jerks like da forehead, Beence finnegan, wrenn, lynn, and a bunch of other young turks were lazy. They had it handed to them and thought it was their right. Didn't take long before they all got caught and when the heat started turning on Vic, he retired and got outta dodge. And, when he died he left Geer behind to take it all back from the guys who screwed it all up......his oldest biological son Don, his best friend Howard, and his best student da forehead. He died a "winner" and took his balls to the grave with him. Which is why his son Don, at the end of a Yak Twig meeting in the motorcycle shed in 1986, tearfully screamed......"He's .... dead and still he tortures me from the grave!". Nice legacy.

1 hour ago, Mike said:

I have also told the story here several times how Schoenheit TWICE implied to me on the phone that no such bad influence made it into the collaterals.

And this is your go-to guy on the handling of the adultery paper?

DWBH has a thread on the subject. I'll hit the high points of his research.

The story about the alcoholic sets us up with how sorry we should feel for Saint Vic's alcoholism.

The story about thorns in the flesh sets us up for how if we're going to accuse Saint Vic of sexual wrongdoing we better have solid proof.

7 minutes ago, chockfull said:

Saint vic and good ole boy Howard started the research with a cartoon on the wall of their motorcycle shed.  It was a picture of two bugs engaged in intercourse with the caption “flea fornication”.  I wonder which of them drew it.

 

At least the cartoon wasn't of two worms making love in dead Ernest.

45 minutes ago, Mike said:

Who knows, where you draw the line? 

It's easy. If you're one of those people popping off about the evils of contemporary moral values,then you should practice what you preach.

19 minutes ago, Mike said:

I have considered that.
I have also considered that everyone looks for loopholes with sex.

But not everyone is a minister telling others sex outside of marriage is wrong.

19 minutes ago, Mike said:

There is a strange silence here about this paper that I have noticed. 

I wonder how many of the 14 "pick-up lines" at the end of that paper have been used by LOTS of people in TWI,  and even some here.  I started hearing the pick-up lines in the 1970s in the early TVTs.

You know the best pickup line? "Hello."

19 minutes ago, Mike said:

I get the impression that paper somewhat quietly ended the party for some who were "having fun" on the side.

Your impression is probably wrong. It's been my experience that parties of that nature don't end, they just become more excusive and secret.

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

No. TWI-1 started out with Craig, Donnie, and Howard.  I think from 1982.

They were at the top in the fall of 1986 when that paper exploded the ministry.

Maybe John Townsend and the South American airline pilot were added to the B.O.T. by Geer by then?

 

 

But it was more than them that hid the paper, otherwise it could have been leaked.

4 minutes ago, Mike said:

Yes. That is what Schoenheit wrote at the very beginning of his paper.

The one that is posted here should have it.

 

Now why would Saint Vic want a paper on adultery and fornication?

Looking for a loophole maybe.

4 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Efforts to confirm victor’s flimsy opinions and conclusions do not constitute research in 1955, 1965, 1975 or 1985. Real research never begins with a conclusion. Never. 

Schoenheit. Why is his name so frequently invoked? He still teaches the obvious stupidity of four crucified. Not impressed.

How many sermons, essays and theological monographs have been written on adultery and fornication over the last 2000 years? Innumerable.

That vic requested “research” on the topic speaks to his deception and stupidity. Who could possibly require further “research” in order to get straight on this topic?

Good points. Nate.

To which I'll add: many of the people that scotched the adultery paper are still in the ministry in leadership positions. Makes you wonder what they're suppressing now.

36 minutes ago, Mike said:

Now, eventually, that Schoenheit paper was squashed and hidden by fear saturated leadership, but it was over a full year after VPW's death.  Thank God, the squashing and hiding were the most brainless cover-up job in history, and the paper got out.

And those are the leaders that are most likely running the ministry now.

After all, they still haven't admitted responsibility, have they?

31 minutes ago, Mike said:

This may have happened to some topics, but it doesn't jive with what John Schoenheit wrote himself in the beginning of his paper on adultery. 

There is an odd note where he says that VPW had asked Vince and Ralph to research adultery or fornication in the early 80s, but they did not know how to begin it, so they asked Schoenheit for help.  

Now, eventually, that Schoenheit paper was squashed and hidden by fear saturated leadership, but it was over a full year after VPW's death.  Thank God, the squashing and hiding were the most brainless cover-up job in history, and the paper got out.

Saint Vic asked two people to research adultery or fornication?

That's like Jeffery Dahmer asking someone to help him research a book on BBQ.

8 minutes ago, chockfull said:

Re-search instead of research.

If you read Penwork's book, there never was research. So just what are they re-searching?

Let's visit the GSC players one more time.

Snowball Pete is dressed in a cliche God outfit with long robes and a long flowing beard. The rest of the players are in a line. Midstage is a cliched representation of the pearly gates.

Johnny Jumpup (dressed in tattered clothes) Why did you let me die of thirst in the desert?

God: Well, you see, there are spiritual things going on you don't understand. I was delayed.

Joe Blow: Look how emaciated I am. Why did you let me starve.

God: I have this gentleman's agreement with the devil and I can only act in accordance with it.

Maggie Muggins (in a swimsuit): Why did you leave me to drown?

God: I know you need oxygen. But I have this deal and I got delayed.

John Doe: According to Mike's "two doors" theory, this is how God would act.

All bow stiffly and exit stage left.

2 hours ago, Mike said:

How do you handle the scarcity of miracles in your life and the lives of people around you

But if we were following your "two doors" theory more evil in the world would mean more miracles, right?

2 hours ago, Mike said:

Well, can you offer an alternative theory as to why the devil seems to be winning most of the time? 

I thought you said you were a trained scientist. You're about as much a scientist as I am a schnauzer.

Several years back, someone claimed they created cold fusion in their laboratory. Other scientist tried the method and failed to get cold fusion.

Now. It wasn't those other scientists responsibility to offer an alternate way to arrive at cold fusion. Proving the theory false was enough. It was the original scientist whose job it was to go back to the drawing board.

2 hours ago, Mike said:

How do you handle the scarcity of miracles in your life and the lives of people around you. 

I define the scarcity of miracles to people in the Way, which is what we're really talking about, as being because Saint Vic was a phony.

2 hours ago, Mike said:

Do you believe God can answer prayers at all?

And that has what to do with Saint Vic being a phony?

2 hours ago, Mike said:

How do you answer the biggest question of all time, which is how can a pure loving God sit back while all the incredible amount of evil seems to just increase?

Read the bible. That's how it's supposed to happen.

2 hours ago, Mike said:

Do you have a better answer than mine?

Yah, Saint Vic was a phony.

2 hours ago, Mike said:

See, I am trying to make sense of life and the scriptures.  It that is too big a challenge for you, or one that seems to promise no pay-out, I would understand.

 

Only those two? How about SAINT VIC WAS A PHONY?

50 minutes ago, Mike said:

The temporary hindrance "suffered" by God's angels in Daniel 9 was another eye-opener.  I thought I saw a pattern in those scriptures, and then thought a few more popped up.

Yah, that makes sense. 

An all powerful God is going to limit himself because of a gentlemen's agreement he has with a lesser being, a being he knew at the time he made the agreement that would never keep the agreement. Now tell us the one with the three bears.

Further, you still haven't told me how Cain's murdering Able fits into all this. From your rationalizations so far I might extract that the devil did evil, the "door" opened and God refused to pour out a blessing. Now, would God refuse to pour out a blessing?

6 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

Oh...ok....I mean because the other ones...ya .... those were clear......

Clear as mud.

8 hours ago, Mike said:

So critical thinking tools are basically doubt tools. They are tools for systematic doubt.  

No, they're tools for recognizing when somebody's trying to con you. Like the con you're attempting to perpetuate now.

8 hours ago, Mike said:

Which is good to do if you are surrounded in sea of fraud and error and deception. 

You mean like Saint Vic and PLAF?

8 hours ago, Mike said:

 

Your CRTs are good for filtering out the good from the bad

Then once you find the truth, you should want to apply different tools to confirm it, to make that truth stick in your mind.   Once you know it’s the truth, then you should really have it set solid in your life so that you don’t flinch on it.. and that’s called confirmation.

 

Which is what we've done with Saint Vic and PLAF.

8 hours ago, Mike said:

And when you seek confirmation, then you need to have to have a bias towards finding it. Otherwise you won’t find much of it.

 

Again, Saint Vic, PLAF.

8 hours ago, Mike said:

 

*/*/*

 

 

Do you apply your CTTs to things that are presented here? 

I apply them to everything in my life, including what's here.

8 hours ago, Mike said:

 

I suspect many here do not, and swallow whatever is posted that is antiPFAL, antiVPW, etc. 

Wrong again?

8 hours ago, Mike said:

 

With those items, activities here more resemble sports rivalries than academic pursuits.

Here is how I know truth from error: truth works. And it doesn't need a dozen excuses why it doesn't work. This is why the law of believing is error.

8 hours ago, Mike said:

My proPFAL bias is useful for confirmation

Having confirmation is a good thing at times, assuming that what is being confirmed is true

In the law of believing, as Jesus instructed, having any doubt in the heart negates the proper operation of that law. I think that “believing without doubt” is a very fine-tuned state of mind.   I think this kind of genuine believing often eluded us, and we were content with mental assent.

And what if what you're believing is wrong. Because you have no doubt you have no way of rooting out error.

Doubling down on the idiotic is still being idiotic.

8 hours ago, Mike said:

 

I seek and find confirmations that help me to believe without doubt and act on the promises of God.  Becoming convinced, through diligent use of CTTs that these promises are genuine and worth believing without doubt was a finished job for me in 1998.  In the 1970s I started the process of using CTTs to wade through the baloney in the world and in the TVTs. After a few ups and downs I arrived at the end of this process in 1998.  I no longer feel a need to apply CTTs to the collaterals.

Yawn! Same bs, different day. So again, if you have no doubt how do you recognize the error of such things as realizing "two doors" and "budget" are confusing terms and need to be clarified?

8 hours ago, Mike said:

Sorry to be so absent. 
There were a few posts I wanted to respond to from last week.

Que pasa?  Your read only audience stop giving you attention so you decided to come here and stir the pot, hoping to squeeze out just a little more attention?

8 hours ago, Mike said:

[][][][][][][][][][][[][[][[][[][[]

On 3/10/2023 at 8:33 AM, I had written:
On this topic, my hunch, I am 60% happy with the idea; happy enough to invest time into it.  But with 40% uncertainty, I am always prepared to junk the idea.

So_crates Posted Friday at 08:37 AM:
Sure you are. Like you were ready to junk "budget" and "two doors" even though they were proven confusing?

Those labels were of serendipitous origin some 45 years ago, and I have no special interest in them.

Yes you do, or you wouldn't be using proven confusing labels 45 years later.

8 hours ago, Mike said:

But if I were to use them again, I would introduce them later in the presentation, and make it clear up-front that they were only rough analogies.

So you're actually married to the terms, despite their confusion. You know, as a writer you should be concerned with what best gets your idea across. If the term is confusing, it goes. But you amateurs get married to terms and ideas and refuse to let them go?

What you wrote in these last 26 pages makes you unworthy to carry a professional writer's pencil box.

8 hours ago, Mike said:

 

[][][][][][][][][][][[][[][[][[][[]

Forty-five years?! And the best you can do is come up with a confusing, half baked theory?

If I had to turn in what you wrote on this subject to anybody I'd be ashamed of myself.

In less than 45 years I'd have a paper so professional it put classical writers to shame.

1 minute ago, Mike said:

On this topic, my hunch, I am 60% happy with the idea; happy enough to invest time into it.  But with 40% uncertainty, I am always prepared to junk the idea.

 

Sure you are. Like you were ready to junk "budget" and "two doors" even though they were proven confusing?

Now tell me the one with the three bears.