Nathan_Jr

I finally began reading this article. It has been a slow start because I suspect the writer is deeply biased. But I am reading it slowly. It's all very slow and gentle. A gentle reading. I just finished reading the word "run." If only I had more time. If only the flurry of posts... well, if they would just stop! It's hard to keep up. Slowly. A gentle keeping up. Like I said, I have made great, if slow, progress in my gentle reading. All I have to say thus far is Yikes! So biased! I wish the article could have been written from an unvarnished perspective. Oh well. Until that day, I'll keep this article in a folder. One question: How are we suppose to run if we are to stand above all. It seems like a contradiction, albeit a gentle one. If you're standing, you can't very well run. And if you're running, you've obviously stopped standing, even if the running is very, very, very slow.

Why can't this be said enough: That this wicked "ministry" needed a monograph written to address the issue of adultery, and that the paper caused such a sh¡t storm, should tell anyone all they need to know about the FOUNDATION of this "ministry." Didn't victor paul wierwille need to loosen up LCM before putting oil on his head? ----- I grew up in a home that some might call church lady-like. Sex was an unspoken issue. Not condemned, just repressed. My mother is a devout Christian, and she raised two boys rightly. I explored sex and drugs with gleeful, unashamed fervor after I left home. I've NEVER been accused of being prude or pious. I have never been afraid of choking on the bone so that I might extract all the marrow. Whether it is the Sunday school of my youth or just my empathic character, it doesn't really matter. I could never allow anyone to "teach" me that hurting another was ok because it's all about beleeef and rewards anyway, not demerits. I'm of generation X. Now, I appreciate the sexual revolution (indeed, all the revolutions) of the 1960s and 70s, but... hippy shmippy... So what! It's no excuse for the hurt caused by this "ministry." And it all goes back to that charlatan victor paul wierwille. All. Of. It.

I think you might be right. Can we really know with certainty the original intent? Sometimes, maybe. Always, probably not. What if we can never know. Will we be ok?

The numinous. Neither religion nor reason is required to experience the numinous. ———— Raf, I understand your point. And I agree. Expanding of the medical metaphor, beleeef is the everyday salve for the discomfort of being alive. Instead of finding out, understanding, knowing or not knowing, examining ourselves honestly, looking, seeing what is actually going on, all we have to do is clutch and cling to beleeef, and voila! the discomfort is remedied.

Mmmmph If victor's "ministry" had been built on rock instead of sand... If he hadn't so smugly defecated in the mouth of God, this adolescent story never would have happened. Even though JS was deeply confused on the crucified, the denials, the crowing cocks, Romans, SIT, etc., I have no reason to disbelieve his account. But it sounds like he and all the others were teenagers! So immature. Lord of the flies kinds of shonta! If victor had been "spiritually mature" perhaps the rickety house he built would have been inhabited by adults. So sad, it's funny. Absurd. Ridiculous. Vomitous. I'm so sorry for all who got caught up (flocked) in this stupid "ministry." 1970s, 80s, 90s... doesn't matter which era. This whole thing is so stupid.

"Teaching" Romans to the Corps, Q&A: LCM: How much does your behavior that people do not see influence your example to them? VPW: It doesn't, unless you believe it will. LCM: You understand what I just asked? VPW: I sure did and I gave you the proper answer. LCM: I asked, How much does your behavior that people do not see influence your example to them? VPW: Alright, Kurt? Kurt: In verse 15..... A few years later, VPW put oil on LCM's head. OIL!! (O-I-L) ---------------- I don't need an essay, a reverend, a doctor, a Bible, a Quran, a hippie, a socio-cultural aesthetic/moral sensibility, or a "class" to tell me that f*cking my friend's wife will hurt my friend and that raping my friend's wife will hurt my friend's wife. And it matters not in which era I live.

I’m not confused about the impact the paper had on this faux ministry. I’m aware of the history. That it had such an impact is all one really needs to know about the founder and foundation upon which such a “ministry” was schemed.

Again, why would poor, poor vic ask for “research” to be done on a topic that even nonbelievers find unambiguous? Why are so many so easily impressed with schoenheit’s paper? What does it say about the foundation of a “ministry” that its inventor would charge his sycophants with such an endeavor?

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?

It's all made up. An invention of imagination. Like four crucified, twice times thrice, crowing cocks, and.... snow.... lots of snow.... It's never ceases to amaze me what people will beleeeve.

Charlene isn’t the only former member of the “research” department who has posted her unvarnished, accurate, historical record here at GSC. If I retember correctly, real, actual, honest research was being done. HOWEVER, the accurate, honest results and conclusions flew in the painted face of victor paul wierwille’s own imagined and dishonest “research.” The REAL research didn’t support Vic’s man-made, false, asserted claims. The honest, REAL research was squashed, buried, stifled by victor paul wierwille. The narcissist’s greatest fear is being found out for the fraud that he is. This is what one means when one says the department wasn’t doing real research — they weren’t allowed to do real research.

Don’t let yourself be confused by facts, evidence, rational thought, common sense.

I found these quotes embedded in the Wiki article on confirmation bias. I love Russian literature, and these two sentences from Tolstoy articulate with such exquisite eloquence the inherent problem of confirmation bias. In his essay (1897) What Is Art?, Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy wrote: I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty—conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives. In his essay (1894) The Kingdom of God Is Within You, Tolstoy had earlier written: The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.

Yeah. It’s rhetorical. Like so many of my questions. Here are a few other rhetorical questions that can’t nor should be answered here: When it comes to spiritual matters or that which is eternal or that which has no name, why are we so eager to be taught, to be trained? What does it mean to be taught? What does it mean to teach? Who is the teacher?