Nathan_Jr

Mmmph

Mmmph

Throughout all (without exception) of victor’s writings and sermons, hundreds, even thousands, of contradictions like this are NOT merely apparent. They literally leap off the page to stand unassailable on their own, above all.

Mmmph

Yoda?

She's a critic of Christian fundamentalism as a prevailing political force in America today, right? She is a critic of the "toxic masculinity" embodied by political leaders who can just grab women by the *****. Her book is Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. My understanding of what she is saying in this disjointed interview is that she is STILL a Christian in spite of all the ***** grabbing justified by so-called Christians; and she remains a Christian in spite of being personally attacked by right wing Christian fundamentalist evangelicals. She makes a distinction between mere "proclaimers of Christ" and "followers of Christ," implying that she is the latter. Amid the backlash from her book, she says she questioned her own faith and identity as a Christian, but she had a "religious experience" and is now at peace with calling herself a Christian. She talks about becoming more tolerant of Christian traditions outside her own (Dutch Reformed). Though she was raised to look at all other denominations as wrong (sound familiar?), she now looks to learn from other traditions and even re-examine her own for errors. She claims to confess the Nicene Creed. Someone earlier said if you don't confess the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, you aren't a Christian. Well, it sounds like she's covered, if that's a fundamental metric. When asked what it means to be a Christian, she offered two points. One was community. I don't remember the other. I don't think she gave a strong answer here. Sounds to me like she's a Christian, but it doesn't really matter to me. We agree on at least one thing, though: grabbing women by the ***** is not very Christ-like.

What are the missing pieces?

Yep.

The claim certainly can be asserted. And the assertion may even be sincere. But on legal grounds? Here are some other asserted claims: ”Cocks crowed differently in Bible times.” ”Four were crucified with Jesus, not two.” ”I invented the hook shot.” ”It snowed.” Is this a discussion of doctrine or of history?

It's one of the risks of AI. How does one know? But heuristics and epistemology have been problematic for ages. Someone asserts a claim of fact. How do you know? I saw it on (insert social media of choice). "John 10:10; therefore, there must be keys." Huh? Yeah, victor paul wierwille said so. Oooooohhhhhh.... well, in that case...it MUST be true. Quick! Someone post this non sequitur to Facebook! Post it twice to establish it. IDGAF how TWI characterizes that website or this one. I characterize TWI and victor paul wierwille as terrorists. Hey! I didn't write the book.

On what grounds would their lawyers try to take it down? It’s not the only website/blog/podcast/stack/archive that makes the demonstrable claim that TWI, founded by the charlatan victor paul wierwille, is a cult. Also, First Amendment. I admit a failure of imagination on my part, but I’m open-minded. If the key word is “try,” then yeah, lawyers might gladly bill for hours to try.

Oh. There's probably a "teaching" about that.

I don't think I could be impolite, no matter how hard I might believe to stand on victor's shoulders. I was polite every time I declined the witnessing from my Corps in-laws, but they were relentless. They just wouldn't leave it alone - greedy for imagined rewards, I suppose. What's the deal with the blood? Is that a mark miss for JWs?

I wish they’d knock on my door. If only I could believe big enough, they would. Some have claimed all you need to say to a Jay Dub is, “I’ve been disfellowshipped.” Apparently, it’s like kryptonite to Superman, or like a question to victor paul wierwille. Anyone have experience with this tactic? “What’s the best way to get a JW to leave you alone?” https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/s/XROxSUO8D2

Dialogue between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken in True Romance (1993), directed by Tony Scott, written by Quentin Tarantino. I didn't mean to be obscure or esoteric, but clearly I strayed too far off the path. You can take it, Human.

Yes. I know. That quote, arguably, is from from one of Gary Oldman's finest performances. It could be said every performance of his is fine, but his character in this movie is especially memorable, so I thought. Here's an another unforgettable, imo, scene from the same film, but not with Oldman. Surely, this is an easy movie quote. : Could I have one of those Chesterfields now? :: Sure. : You got a match? Oh wait no no, don't bother. I got one. You're Sicilian, huh? :: Yeah, Sicilian. : You know, I read a lot. Especially about things in, uh, about history. I find that dang fascinating. Here's a fact, I don't know whether you know or not, Sicilians ... were spawned by niggers. :: Come again? [laughs] : It's a fact. You see, Sicilians have black blood pumpin' through their hearts. If you don't believe me, you can look it up. Hundreds and hundreds of years ago, you see, the Moors conquered Sicily. And the Moors are niggers. :: Yes... : So you see, way back then, uh, Sicilians were like, uh, wops from Northern Italy. Ah, they all had blonde hair and blue eyes, but, uh, well, then the Moors moved in there, and uh, well, they changed the whole country. They did so much ....in' with Sicilian women, huh? That they changed the whole bloodline forever. That's why blonde hair and blue eyes became black hair and dark skin. You know, it's absolutely amazing to me to think that to this day, hundreds of years later, that, uh, that Sicilians still carry that nigger gene. Now this...

No. Earlier.

: He must've thought it was white boy day. It ain't white boy day, is it? : Naw, man. It ain't white boy day.

Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood.

Yeah. Could be something. I vaguely remember the imperative mood discussed when analyzing the Lord’s Prayer. What I DO vividly remember is a thinly veiled contempt for the Lord’s Prayer. If we were anywhere besides the fellowship commander’s own house, he would have spit on the floor while “teaching” that lesson. Only sincere questions and honest inquiry were hated more than Jesus’ name and his prayer. ———/ I should say, though “let there be light” is not a literal word for word translation, because, well, Hebrew, it’s a totally badass rendering for my taste. Some kind of Jedi quality, maybe, but greater. I’ve always been drawn to that first chapter. And I don’t believe chapter two onward is of the same author.

Someone made a comment on another board that permitted a feeling of hope in me, but it was fleeting. He said that English doesn't have a third person command like Greek. This was his reason for the translation "Let there be light" in Genesis, (which was written in Hebrew). His comment gathered no traction. Credit goes to all the other posters for ignoring him. Sounds exactly like something victor would say, but there might be a kernel in this idea. A tremendous kernel. I'm open, but remain unconvinced.

"He turned a blind eye," is a common idiom in English that seems related to, yet distinctly separate from (pros?), the theological "idiom of permission." I've been scouring the webs for an academic paper from a Hebrew scholar on Hebrew idioms. I found one that addresses many ancient Hebrew idioms, including several examples in 2 Samuel. It's an inexhaustible and excruciatingly technical dissertation, but no mention of the "idiom of permission." The author may have called it by another name or else alluded to it in another way, but I failed to bookmark the paper and will now have to re-search it. When I re-find it, I'll post the link. I've seen several theological treatises and comments on message boards, but the song is same and the suspects are usual - Bullinger is often cited. So far, I believe the idiom to be purely theological in nature and purpose, like the Trinity, or Unitarianism, or heaven and hell, or hyperdispensationalism. And, of course, this is just fine.

“[vpw] occasionally would claim he worked all the error out of the works of others- but he did not. He seemed not to understand their work, and copied it over with errors intact. So, Bullinger's errors got included (like thedifference between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God) and Leonard's errors got included (like the definitions of the manifestations), and so on. He moved some words around to make plagiarism less obvious, and made some things wordier, but did not improve upon their substance.” This observable, demonstrable fact of actual reality is not mentioned enough. The plagiarism is frequently observed, sure, but the plagiarized errors and stupidities… wow. it’s a different level of dishonesty. It’s willful ignorance. It’s contempt of truth. All of this is unrighteous. The apologist will rebuff with, “By what measure? Churchianity’s? Five senses realm? Man’s law?” These are but flimsy, rhetorical cop outs designed to deflect and distract. No. vpw was unrighteous by the very measure of Righteousness itself.

Apples and oranges. The idiom of permission makes the active passive, not the passive active. “She flung the plate to the floor causing it to break.” Literally, “The plate broke,” or, “she allowed it to break.” THIS is the idiom of permission. Bullinger wrote, “Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do.” Therefore, “God created the heavens and the earth” is accurately understood as, ”God permitted the creation of the heavens and the earth.” The accuracy of understanding comes with knowing that active verbs were used idiomatically. That figures of speech are common in every language is mundanely obvious to me. I am asking: is this a common idiom or a theological one?

In the beginning Elohim permitted the creation of the heavens and the earth?