Rocky

I don't know. I don't care. This whole thread, IMO, is vain babbling and good people being tossed about by every wind of Mike's bull$pit.

I disagree. It also gets into how several of you are so easily tossed about (by see Eph 4:14) whenever he pushes your buttons. The overall and overarching "discussion" is doctrinal. It's not just me, but then again, I'm not a moderator either. Bottom line: LEARN from the 20 years or so in which Mike has been pulling this same s**t. In the meantime, the purpose of the "about the way" forum has been hijacked. Period. Further in the meantime, take a lesson from Ryan Holiday, whose latest book on Stoic philosophy is "Discipline is Destiny: the Power of Self-Control." As you know, self-control is the farthest thing from a Biblical truth, right? Self-Control is pretty much what Wierwille lacked. HE was tossed about by every wind of the temptation of his flesh and seemed to most easily justify disregarding the virtues of self-control... he did whatever the h E double hockey sticks he wanted to do and he used his own damn private interpretation to justify it. As to the doctrinal issue of the Absent Christ, who gives a F? Nevertheless... carry on.

Btw, generally speaking, and notwithstanding Wierwille's years of gaslighting, science isn't precise.

FACT! Also fact, I tried to warn you guys.

Isn't this REALLY a doctrinal forum topic?

Perhaps you can find something you might be looking for on this thread.

Yes, very good and very succinct. For those in twi who are ready to hear, it's also quite salient.

They don't know better. Seems like EVERY religious institution (twi is obviously a very minor "institution") is only concerned about what is good for the organization. Not unlike the clergy-penitent privilege that protects child abusers in many states from being discovered. A huge factor for both the Mormon/LDS and Catholic Churches to PROTECT THEMSELVES. Not interested in what's best for the people they're supposed to serve. In the case of TWI and/or splinter groups, THEY can't go past what they know because they have no vision and nobody they want to trust has told them they CAN go further.

Word!

Perhaps true, yet he may have had a valid point about self-limiting lack of vision. That's why I cited Sheehy's Pathfinders, which book inspired me to go beyond what Wierwille taught. And to "think outside the box."

Yeah, a whole new world. I can't help but say AMEN (and AWOMEN) to the behavioral insights of your initial reflections and predictions. In a way... or put differently... RandR was a reactionary "movement." They grew fed up with aspects of the Wierwille cult and how it had malformed over the decades... and only wanted to go back to what they believed were the righteous aspects of the movement they "grew up" in. They aren't and weren't a visionary group with new ideas or new ways of looking at what they understood from their biblical studies or religious practices. What is it Victor used to teach? A person can't go farther (or was it further) than he is taught? At times like these I think back to a book Gail Sheehy wrote decades ago, Pathfinders. Originally published in 1982, I remember reading it in the 1990s. The late journalist (she succumbed to Covid, before there was a vaccine, IIRC) was a true visionary and had plenty of insight that the R and R bots could have (or could still) use(d) to get out of the Wierwille mold. (two separate legit usages of "mold" intended here). Anyway, Skyrider, I again appreciate your insight... ... and Chockfull's insight too. For individuals involved, I can't honestly answer it either. However, as a group, or as a movement hoping to actually revitalize groups of followers of Wierwille, it seems obvious to me that they lack necessary the ability to "think" or envision outside of the box they've been trapped in (of their own choosing) for decades.

What a WONDERFUL couple of analogies, figures of speech. Not a transformer. Can and should we take LITERALLY the "fact" Jesus Christ is "right now seated at the right hand of God..." IF it were literal, how would it be depicted in images and stories? What the heck does it mean, in literal, factual, truth? Or is it a story told down through the ages... to depict a certain truth? You know, kinda like Greek, Roman, or Norse mythology? I know, that's

Yet, one thing he wasn't when he was in human form on earth is Caucasian. That's a cool video clip, but I had cognitive dissonance when they used Jim Caviezel's image and clips, in it.

I'm not sure if this is a reasonable way to characterize this topic, but it sure sounds like vain babbling to me.

Sigh... there Mike goes yanking everyone else on the thread by a chain while he cannot and does not do anything but obfuscate. It boggles my mind to consider why people still let him do it.

There you go supposing again. Btw, I asked my questions before you posed your "two moderately difficult questions."

Why do you "suppose" anything about anyone? Why would you not simply pose the question, do any of the posters here find the expressions "HIDDEN Christ" or "absent Christ" repulsive, or otherwise believe they are inappropriate? If so, please explain the reason for your belief and/or feelings.

I hope so too. to Tiredgirl.

Holy CARP! Classic projection is what that looks like.

How did Mike get the "good fruit," ostensibly as a result of believing in the Word of Victor in the PFLAP class, in his life before he started to believe Victor's claims? In some sense, Mike's story has been consistent through the decades. But not in this sense. He's got a somewhat elaborate story, but to try to make it fit as a rebuttal on this thread, he appears to be confused. I'm not going to challenge "Mike's story." I, however, DO challenge his effort to insert logic into it. Mike failed in that effort. Could it have been--in Mike's life--that he really did get hypnotized (or otherwise captured by Victor's "theatrics") by Victor's words BEFORE looking for any "good fruit" in Victor's life?

Because that tiny handful of people are/were blinded by the light. Or blinded somehow anyway. This takes me back to Dacher Keltner's 2016 book, The Power Paradox. Wierwille is vividly and easily recognized in the four power principles Keltner together says are all about abuse of power.

Technically, the concept of (and the word) citizen and citizenship didn't arise in common use until long after David's era. What we now consider citizens, then (I think) were considered "subjects." Perhaps nowadays in the UK, a person is (or can be) both a citizen and a subject. That said, semantically and rhetorically, your point is the same, if my understanding is even close to being correct. Nevertheless, Wierwille wasn't a king, didn't have a kingdom lawfully, and I'm confident he could easily have been convicted of sexual offenses based on what we know of his history.