Nathan_Jr

If you try hard enough you can MAKE it fit. I can appreciate various genres of music, but I separate my appreciation from my preference, though sometimes they are aligned. Some of my favorite music could not be considered great. Jerry Garcia was NOT a great vocalist, the quality of the band's performances were inconsistent, often abysmal, and it could be argued that they never really improved, though they had decades to do so. But I love the Grateful Dead's music, nonetheless. Classical music and Jazz played a big part in the soundtrack of my youth, because that's what my dad liked and it was ALWAYS playing in the house. To compare the music of AOS with great classical composers, to call it one the greatest compositions of the 20th century, strikes me as an opinion from someone who has never listened to great music nor tried to understand what makes great music. As the logical errors literally leap off the pages of PFAL and the collaterals, so do the pretentious affectations of AOS. It is cringe. It's not for me.

"It has always been my opinion that AOS had the best of the best music. I have thought of it as being some of the best music of the 20th Century." These are challenging, if hilarious, sentences to read. They are telling. I invited my son to join me at the movies last week. He wasn't keen on the particular film because his mom saw it and she said it was not good. When pressed, he admitted she didn't like it because it depicted some human behavior she disagreed with -- she hated it because of this. It was an opportunity to teach on criticism -- criticism of film, music, architecture, food, coffee... whatever. I quoted the excellent essay On Connoisseurship by the wine writer Matt Kramer, "A Connoisseur is one who can distinguish between what he or she likes, and what is good. The two are by no means always the same."

This is a good, very brief look at a deep, nuanced and important issue to consider. Where do our thoughts come from? Do we by our own volition generate thoughts? Or, do thoughts just arise? What can we control? Think about a movie. Any movie. It doesn't matter if you've seen it or not. Pick one, any one. Ok, got it? Now, where did THAT come from? Of the hundreds or thousands of movies you know, why did that one emerge in your thought? Did you choose it? Why Casablanca instead of Forest Gump? Here's another one. Try to stop thinking. Clear your conscious mind of its contents. By your own free will make your thoughts stop. You will notice the harder you try the worse it gets. We are all conditioned. The script is there. Thoughts seem to arise on their own. It seems to me the first and most liberating thing to do is pay attention. See it. The topic of this thread is more complicated than it appears, and I'm not finished considering it.

Yep. There she is. I knew I heard her. I just KNEW it!

Irony? ...Irony... Hey! ....Irony, is that you? ...could've swore I heard her say something... Oh, Eye-Row-Neeeee.... I can heeeaaarrrr you...

Of course I have free will - I have no choice in the matter.

"grads"* ----- "The kind of research to be done there was to VERIFY what VPW had already found from God's guidance." Verify via the five senses, of course. Yet so many of vic's cookies crumble, even when handled under the most generous empirical and spiritual scrutiny. To VERIFY errors, mistakes, lies, fictions, and bullshonta requires willful ignorance and deliberate dishonesty -- five senses dishonesty AND spiritual dishonesty. "VPW taught against [REAL research] in the tape and print record, but we all were slow to understand. Admitting this is not a good look, after all, it's called a RESEARCH ministry not a VERIFICATION ministry. Who could be blamed for being slow to understand 3=5? Absurd. "(1) Are you thinking of where VPW suggested in the film class that we put aside all our reading material for THREE MONTHS and read nothing but the CHURCH EPISTLES ?" A suggestion no less foolish and impractical. A mere alternate route to the same destructive destination. And who will privately interpret those epistles? Ol' VP will, that's who. It's still all about control. "(2) Are you thinking of at the end of his life VPW suggested to his top leaders (and all of us) that we master the foundational and intermediate classes and the written materials that come with them ?" This is the culmination of all he had to teach? His final "lost" teaching? Crawl with the epistles, but run with the collaterals and classes?!?! Notice the conspicuous omission of his Advanced Class and its paper "keys" to walking with the spirit. "(3) Are you thinking of the 20 year review of the collaterals that I did from 1998 to 2018 ?" No.** "Also during that time period I heard VPW suggest that the Harvard Classics were good to read, and that he really wanted all his top leaders to read them." I finally have insight into my fellowship commander's*** melodramatic declaration that civilization had reached it'll peak in the 19th century -- oh, how he longed to live in that great century! Charles Eliot was a man limited to his period, and by the 1980s the Harvard Classics, though classic, were as incomplete as ever and woefully in need of updates. And who, having given all their spare income to the cult, could have afforded this 50-volume series? ----- * Remember graduating from the 5th grade? Yeah, it's like that. ** I normally wouldn't speak for Rocky, but I'm confident I can here. *** Headquarters. All that military imagery. Hey! I didn't organize this cult.

Viktorpneustos

Gross. Talk is cheap. I heard this All. The. Time. from my fellowship commander and his wife, the commandress, and as recently as three years ago. They left in 1986. The only books in their house are those “written” by vic and Bullinger, TWI-approved lexicons and interlinears, some KJVs, and a few cookbooks. They are master absorbers of the collaterals and fervent beleeevers in 1942 as the greatest year in the history of the world for this our day in time. “Dr. said…” is the only phrase I heard more frequently. It ALL goes back to victor paul wierwille. All. Of. It.

A comment on the blog post from Billy Williams stands out. “…all the caring of people seemed to be conditionally available only to those who stayed loyal to the group.”

Except that it's not. It's just not. It's a paradox. A figger of speech, see? It's not a hand that will fit in your wierwillian glove. Victor stumbled on belief systems, too. He was wrong about atheism being a belief in not believing. How wrong? Turns out dead wrong. That's how.

Perfect. Thank you.

Mmmph

Ooops! "It wasn't until I actually FIRST took the 1942 promise seriously in 1998 that all of these odd attitudes of VPW here started to fit perfectly for me."

A system? A belief system? I don’t believe in beleeef (accurate spelling according to literal usage in the original).

“I've also reported here on the 3 SNS tapes where VPW indicated he respected some manuscripts that were NOT YET FOUND over the itexisting manuscripts. I often pulled my hair out over that in the 1980s.” What more could be said? Just let it sit (rest) there like a duck.

It sounds like you are suggesting I am an atheist or an agnostic. I have never claimed either of those labels for myself. Not here or anywhere. Not on a boat, not with a goat; not in a house, not with a mouse…

Curiosity leads to finding out. A charlatan’s greatest fear is being found out for who he is. (Rest is not literally sit. It is not a free radical.)

Mmmph

Irony thinks she is hiding, but I see her. Here is another good article by Gurwinder. "Ten Reasons Your Beliefs Are Probably Bull$hit" https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/10-reasons-your-beliefs-are-probably

Right. Generally, we understand a redaction as a removal of text, but a redactor is, broadly, an editor, a reviser. I should have been more precise: an interpolator. I don't think these verses sound gnostic, and I'm aware of lots of silly literature that claims to be scripture. None of that answers my question, so I'll rephrase. Was there a theological point the editor was trying to make? What was the reason for the insertion? What was the interpolator trying to suggest or prove to his audience? That this event further showed that Jesus was, indeed, the Christ? Did he think this would make sense to some believers or to Jews? The editor must have thought it made sense to add these lines. I'm not at all saying that it DOES make sense.

If it is a later editorial insertion, what’s the point? What might have motivated the redactor to add these verses? Why? Can anyone steel man the argument from the redactor’s POV?

Did McConaughy work on the Aramaic interlinear published by The Way, Inc.? It seems that he can make for himself an honest and accurate claim of researching the Bible for forty years. Was he banished? Or did he leave on his own accord?

On an iPhone or iPad a single tap on the imbedded image renders a clearly scanned document.

No one is playing chess.* For twenty years Mike has dodged, deflected, distracted, ignored, accused, projected, whined. These are not excellent moves, but they are his, and they are telling. Hey! He is doing his best. * In the original Sanskrit chess is literally sabrina. It's a free radical. The game is not chess. The game is sabrina - sabrina, Sabrina, SABRINA! No one knows what sabrina means, but my hunch is it's a type of ancient cookie or the name of a mermaid. I can't prove any of this. You'll just need to take my word for it. Write it on a 3x5 card, if you must. ABC. Simple. Math.