Nathan_Jr

Really? Are we not talking about heuristics and epistemology? How (H-O-W) we know or don’t know? My question is right on topic. I’ve seen this deflective tactic before. I’m not disappointed, because I don’t expect more from you.

A. Always B. Be C. Closing

You can upvote it seven times, if you can beleeeve big enough. Got oil?

To get you started.... Confirmation bias, a phrase coined by English psychologist Peter Wason, is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms or strengthens their beliefs or values and is difficult to dislodge once affirmed.[2] Confirmation bias is an example of a cognitive bias. Some psychologists restrict the term "confirmation bias" to selective collection of evidence that supports what one already believes while ignoring or rejecting evidence that supports a different conclusion. Others apply the term more broadly to the tendency to preserve one's existing beliefs when searching for evidence, interpreting it, or recalling it from memory.[6] Confirmation bias is a result of automatic, unintentional strategies rather than deliberate deception.[8][9] Confirmation bias cannot be avoided or eliminated, but only managed by improving education and critical thinking skills. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Definition_and_context

How do you know? Have you experienced death?

Impossibly unfair question to ask.

Either you don't understand what Kuhn meant by normal science or you are simply unable to meaningfully and accurately convey the term. And to conflate confirmation bias with normal science is a huge misunderstanding - nothing but confusion can arise by asserting this error. I can explain it all to you, but I don't have time right now. Merry Christmas

Well done, T-Bone. In a court of law intent is usually proven beyond a reasonable doubt with circumstantial evidence. Drawing inferences, even conclusions, about victor's intent based on circumstantial evidence is not unreasonable, IMO. I'm sure you already know this is not MY statistical formula. Not REALLY. It's from Anchorman. You know the scene, right?

I don’t remember that, but I believe you. What was his point? Was it an unintentional indictment of himself?

Yes. I think those two reasons are designs of the grooming. CF&S was a play called at the line of scrimmage. Not everyone could run that play. Many tried and gained some ground, like Loy. But only Victor Barnard, one of vpw’s most astute disciples, could take it all the way.

I've only seen the one loaded to Internet Archive. It's difficult to watch, like all videos of victor paul wierwille. In it he asserts several "private interpretations" of the Bible. It's a mid-70s production, I think. At that filming he is not yet out too far over his skis -- he spews bullshonta and lies like you just wouldn't believe! I've wondered WTF was the point of that "class" but for grooming of girls for future "service."

There were children in the audience when Victor showed his CF&S. T-bone has chronicled that grooming event a couple times. What is the proper time to show a video of bestiality to children?

Do you have children?

@Mike Again, post it here, as I've suggested. Or post it on a topic specific to her book. You are free to post your critique anywhere, except Roy's thread. She wasn't free to do honest research while under victor, but you are free to express your opinions.

You do know “at the right hand of” is a figure of speech, right? “Jasper is Willie’s right hand man.” Willie can’t go anywhere without his right hand — he can’t go anywhere without Jasper.

Does God leave his right hand at the farm while he is everywhere? God is everywhere, but his right hand is stuck at the farm?

Idiot? Uh-oh. You could have made that clear. You didn’t quote OldSkool. You didn’t press that simple quote button. How would one know? You made a post without context on a thread that seems to have no context. Like it or not, discern it or not, this thread belongs to Roy, and Roy alone. Posting as you did is like holding him down and dropping a deuce on his chest. Leave. Him. Alone.

Tarries? What a word choice. Is the Lord late? Whose timeline is the Lord on? Who knows the timeline? My twig commander presumes to effectuate the Lord’s return. Especially at Pentecost, Easter, July 4., Sept. 11, Columbus Day… He would admonish us to beleeve big enough for something BIG to happen. Then, then, THEN he’d point towards the sky or the ceiling. We all knew what “something BIG” meant. Just beleeve TF out of anything, including the Lord’s return, and you can just MAKE it happen.

Though I was able to discern within seconds* of PFAL rolling that victor paul wierwille did NOT have the Truth and that he was a fraud and a creep, John Juedes' videos and articles were very important in fleshing out my understanding. * For some it takes seconds, for others it takes years, but that moment of clarity is the same for all: it is instantaneous, it is a flash of light, or, if you prefer, a snap revelation.

I've often wondered about this. Why wasn't the 7th THE Man of God the man he knew to be? What are his cop outs? Was it his cup overflowing with fear? Was it a lack of power? Was it spiritual weakness? Was it spiritual stupidity? Was it a black heart? Was it a lack of beleeving? Was it wrong beleef? Was it wrong seed? Did he not know how (H-O-W) to order his steps? Did he not know how (H-O-W) to walk? Why stand on the shoulders of and imitate such a man?

In Mike's mind it's not, because he beleeves the collaterals and PFAL are theopneustos. He beleeves Jesus will be holding a copy of PFAL at his return and that God knows this in His foreknowledge. It all goes back to 1942 and 1998. It's simple math. What victor paul wierwille wrote is the word of God. This is Mike's beleef. So it seems to me. I could be wrong.

Thanks. Has this not been established? I'm sure it has been explored. Or maybe not.

Crowing? Like in Bible times?