Nathan_Jr

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?

Right. An idiom is a figure of speech. But how does one know to switch from the literal to the figurative? Only when Yahweh’s actions need smoothing? Literal: “Yahweh caused him to stumble.” Idiom of Permission: “Yahweh permitted his stumbling.” But here? Literal: ”Yahweh delivered them...” Idiom of Permission: “Yahweh allowed them to be delivered…” Does the idiom apply to ALL of Yahweh’s actions?

There may be something to the proposition that Hebrew grammar allows for a passive shading of an active verb, but it leads to more questions. What is the rule? How does one know when to use it? Does it only work for Yahweh? Does this rule apply to texts outside of the Torah? Or is it merely a theological coating to ease the swallowing of a difficult pill? Do any of the early Church Fathers allude to this idiom? A paper by a Hebrew scholar could be helpful.

No Country for Old Men? idk

I suspect they don’t mind at all. They wouldn’t want to risk being accused of being grumbling, non-cheerful givers. Also, something about the beleeef that standing with this “ministry” will profit them future rewards.

That’s it.

It’s always a good time, no matter how often I’ve seen it. So satisfying. (Stephen King’s stories translate so well to the screen. He’s an underrated writer, IMO.) “What do you mean I'm funny? What do you mean, you mean the way I talk? What? Funny how? What's funny about it? I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to ....in' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?”

Shawshank Redemption

Reading assessments have been on the decline in the U.S. since 2020. As much as I despise censorship and book banning, unintentional positive results may come of it. I sought out and read many banned books as a kid in middle school and high school. Few things motivate the youth quite like prohibition.