WordWolf

Is this that new show, "Heroes"? I've heard there's a cheerleader on it.

I wonder if anyone else is playing along right now....

I recently read a book about Jim Morrison. I was never in the Doors' fan club or anything like that, but I've always liked their music. Jim had a vocal delivery that I found compelling. Of all the bands I never saw, which includes some very big names, the Doors is the one I now wish I'd made more of an effort to see. But the book has some unflattering things to say about Jim.

It was written by someone close to the group and was quick to point out good things Jim did well (musically, on stage, etc.), but he was really an a$$hole a lot. He was always drunk. The 'Soft Parade' album was basically the 10% of the studio time when he WASN'T too stoned, drunk, or otherwise self absorbed to get anything done. That's part of why there's string and horn arrangements on that recording that aren't on the others.

He was also cruel and sadistic at times to those close to him. But I still have Doors music in my house and car. I can play and sing 3 of their songs. He had a good singing voice IMO and only Elvis has been seen more often than he since he died. Not a 100% match, but in a lot of ways VP is the same to me.

I can see parallels there, also.

VP was a researcher; he borrowed from people, but he also rejected stuff from the same people he borrowed from. PFAL was basically VPs product. IMO it was a good product.

I could debate whether or not "researcher" really applied, given that his approach

was generally to rely EXCLUSIVELY on the work of others, and the few things

that seem vpw-originals are really gonzo, like the original sin-stuff.

That he borrowed some things and not others is true, but I really don't think that

qualifies as "research" or originality, by itself.

I do agree pfal was his product. I think parts of it were good product,

and parts of it were not.

I don't know if this has been an old topic or not (probably has).......but it recently came up in my life.....and I thought I'd get your input on the perspective/perception of this phrase...."Don't look at the 5-Senses"

I know for me, ultimately, that became denial. Denying what the situation is.....example.......getting a cold.....but saying, "No, I don't have a cold"........Or......I have a broken arm....but saying, no I don't have a broken arm.....It distorted for me, what really was......

It recently came up when I was talking to a friend....and it came right out of my mouth, "don't look at the 5 senses" and then later I started thinking about what that really meant. The enlightment that came to me was......don't continually direct your eyes, your mind on your 'Broken leg".....Yes you do have a broken leg, but instead of consistently keeping your mind on that.....you should look to God.....trust Him, read the word about His character, His ability, His love for you, and Know that He will take care of you in this situation. This brings a lot more sanity to me anyway.

Am I on track here??

Appreciate your comments......

Personally I think it's an idiotic notion to ignore the 5 senses.. God gave them to you for a purpose..

The problem I see is when we rely on our 5-senses which in a sense is relying on ourselves rather than putting our trust and reliance in God. I have a broken arm.. Great.. What can I do to help it heal. Ignore it? Hell no.. It won't fix itself.. Yes we go to God and ask for His help. His healing. But to not see what the 5-senses say and take action is like saying I know what to do but I'm not going to do it. We don't tempt God by jumping off a cliff and expecting him to save us, neither are we to tempt God by ignoring the 5 senses and thinking it will take care of itself cause we love God and he'll do it for us.. God gave us a brain and 5 senses to use. But our trust is resting in God that he will ultimately take care of our needs. We don't have perfect knowledge of what's needed, neither do the doctors, and the honest ones will tell you they don't understand it all. Doctors know in part, and we know in part (probably less than the doctors though), but all 5 -senses.. And so we do what we know to do 5-senses, looking at them long and hard. But while we may go to the doctor and do whatever needs be, we never forget it is Him who cares for us, causes it to heal, allows us to breathe and live and have our being. So while we go about taking care of the things that need be to the best we know to do, we realize it isn't us or the doctor that heals the damn arm, it's God who designed the dang thing to work knows exactly what the perfect solution is and is working in the sitution to cause the best to happen toward us! It all comes down to trusting in Him, but not temping him and trying to force God to do what YOU want just cause you want a 60 second miracle and not taking the necessary 5 -senses steps.

Well, just my thoughts.. Who knows, I can be wrong! lol... I thought it was a broken arm, and you said it was a leg.. Shows you how much my 5-senses works! lol

I dunno.. outside of some kind of bizarre Pavlovian conditioning, I don't think people even have the option to not look at, or not trust the five senses..

"I think my back hurts.."

*kzzzorrtttt*

"no, that's negative.."

"But I really hurt.."

*kzzzzzzorrrrttt*

"we don't confess negatives here.."

"but.."

*kazzzorrrrrrtttt*

I believe this was one of the more insidiously evil teachings of twi.

DOn`t look at the 5 senses translated into don`t question ANYTHING your leader tells you to do, no matter HOW assinine.

To look at the impact the actions being required would have on your life, was to be looking at things 5 senses wise...ANYTIME you tried to object to mistreatment, rediculous control, things being requisitioned in the name of God...such as your money, your vehicle, your furniture, your time, your life....you were guilty of looking at things through your 5 senses...

It was the playing card they pulled out any time they wanted to mistreat you...or worse...insist that you mistreat the people in your fellowship, your friends your family members....even down to throwing the kids out on the streets...

Got a problem with any of that???? Renew you mind and quit looking at things from a 5 senses natural man point of view.

I heard that phrase used when a intellectually challenged clergy was intimidated by a mere "twigger" because he was smart. Oh and how he hated it when someone got a degree! (Unless of course, it was his kid.)

WTF do we have senses for if we're not supposed to use them?? :blink:

That was one of the dumbest things and Rascal said it so well, I can't really add to that - it was nothing more than yet another tactic to control our lives: Don't trust your own senses and brain - pay no attention to that still small voice - We'll tell you what to think, feel and do.

Indeed, do eagles in the middle east still practice this custom?

I found it more interesting- even when in twi- that "Strange Scriptures That Perplex

the Western Mind" gave an entirely DIFFERENT explanation of the eagle being

renewed, and even then I thought it was more plausible as an answer.

That book said that the eagle's beak continues to grow, and when it gets too

long (I'm typing from distant memory so don't consider this a quote),

the eagle pecks a rock until the current beak breaks off. Then the eagle hides

itself until a new beak grows and hardens into place.

While it waits, it can't eat, so it's essentially on a fast. During that time,

its old feathers typically fall out, leaving new feathers growing under it.

Eventually, the eagle steps forward again,

with a new, shorter beak, and new feathers,

looking like a much younger eagle.

Please note that a quick web-search on this shows that others have asked

about this, and bird students have said this isn't true either.

One pointed out that the verse works as a metaphor, and taking it too

literally isn't necessary.

After doing some checking online, I don't see anything substantial connecting the

fish people mention as a real fish, with the fish people SAY was in the story,

nor have I seen documentation proving those fish collect money.

A separate issue is the level of detail Pillai gave- which leapt into the category of myth.

And real people have come forward with stories of space aliens that sexually abused them, took them up in their flying saucer and did all that nasty stuff to them, etc. as well. Just what was the point you were trying to make?

Since I believe you honestly don't understand the difference, I'll explain, in part.

Comparing and contrasting vpw's victims who've come forth with alien abductees.

Alien abductees are rare, and tend towards the tinfoil-hat and conspiracy theory types.

vpw's victims tend to be women whose lives were working until an event happened,

leaving them emotionally scarred, or crippled in some cases. This event is reported

to be sexual abuse by vpw. Their testimony agrees with each other, despite an

absence of a conspiracy to coordinate their stories.

Their accounts are corroborated by those who knew them at the time.

Some of THEM were told right after, some saw things and were only able to make

sense of them once they realized "vpw's a rapist" was an option, and the most

likely one.

Their accounts are further corroborated by confessions from people who were in

vpw's inner circle who have since shown remorse for not stopping things.

So, it's not just "their word against your opinion of vpw."

WW and Mr. Ham apparently continue to struggle with the findings in the Leuchter report. They often quote Nizkor (even post articles from Nizkor to assist them in refuting the Leuchter report),

Times like this, I'm confirmed that WTH either isn't reading my posts,

or isn't understanding my posts.

How many times have I quoted Nizkor so far in this thread?

Unless I forgot something, or you count quoting other posters,

the total should hover around "zero".

yet four years later after it was published the Leuchter Report was confirmed by three other reports:

1. First, that of the Krakow Forensic Institute;
   
2. Then, that of the German Germar Rudolf, and finally,
   
3. That of the Austrian Walter Lüftl.
   

The most stunning of these three reports is the one from Krakow. It had been pressed for by the authorities at the Auschwitz State Museum in the hope that it would disprove the Leuchter Report's conclusions. The opposite happened and despite embarrassed explanations to try to minimize the meaning of their own tests, the authors of the Krakow report indeed confirmed - involuntarily - that Fred Leuchter was right. As a result, the exterminationists prefer to treat the report of the Krakow Forensic Institute with silence.

All the data refuting your position may as well be nonexistent for all the time you've given them.

As in ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THEM, not reading around them,

but we're supposed to consider all your data as sacrosanct.

Interesting disconnect.

And it still ignores the elementary science errors in Leuchter's report.

How "reliable" are scientific studies that can skip over what high school students know?

Still amazed that the finest scientific minds of the Holocaust revision movement wouldn't

have gotten passing grades in lab class in my old high school.

Doesn't say much of their scholarship abilities, and I don't have to get

complicated or use fancy words to see that.

Hey WW and Mr Ham, have you found any links to post here from Nizkor that refutes the report from the Krakow Forensic Institute? Hmmmmm, I didn't think so.

when the most basic level won't pass scrutiny? Is the science good enough that I should

take it even a LITTLE seriously? Hmmm, I didn't think so.

WTH, do you think you sound more erudite like this?

Do you think others are reading this and saying "that WTH has the right of it,

science is on his side here"?

As Dr. Robert Faurisson stated at the Ernest Zundel trial: "I will be prepared to believe in the Nazi gas chamber, the central pillar of the 'Holocaust' religion, on the day you can describe 'a single one of those gas chambers' to me."

They were chambers. They were at the Auschwitz facility (Auschwitz 2 and adjoining.)

They were designed to put people and poison gas together, killing the people with the

poison gas.

They were used for their designed purpose.

That's a description.

========

As for "Holocaust religion", the raising of this subject-by you- to a dogma is one reason

you're missing the obvious-like what I post.

It's also why some specific becomes a "central pillar", an object of fixation.

To me, THAT the Nazis killed millions of people, and that they planned to kill millions of people,

is more important than where they killed them (unless it was on the battlefield),

how they killed them (unless it was in standard military engagement),

or who they killed (unless it was soldiers of the opposing armies.)

These other matters, to me, are secondary. It was wrong for them to plan to kill

millions of people- which they went on record saying was their plan.

It was wrong to imprison people for the purpose of killing them- which is a matter

of record, obstinates to the contrary.

It was wrong to wipe out the people in those prisons- which has been documented

well enough for all but a handful of the most obstinate people.

The Clue specifics of where they did it, and with what weapon, to me,

doesn't matter. Killing those people is no MORE right if they were all beaten to death

with sticks in a public park, or if they were all Russian or South American.

But that many of them-and not all of them-were Jews allows some a fixation

with ideologies claiming Jews secretly rule the world and the banks and so on.

If anything, I always considered WW and Mr. Ham to be hard core skeptics - people who need tons of scientific evidence and scientific documentation before they would believe anything at all.

reports are inconclusive. If they were inconclusive here, that would apply.

In fact, our age believes itself to be skeptical, believing only that which it sees.

It claims to be the age of television. It claims to be the age of science and technology.

Yet our age still believes in a material thing of which it does not have the least material representation and never has a book, a movie or the television provided us with an image of this material thing -- The German Nazi Gas Chamber of The Holocaust!

Supposing that's true, it doesn't change the reality of something just because

it hasn't appeared on television...

WordWolf,

What are you doing up so late?

It's Friday night.

No one was perfect in the application of the doctrine.

The doctrine (especially written) was pure, but the we all blew the applications at times, even vpw.

That's your opinion.

Whenever something went wrong, it was never wrong teaching, only wrong application.

It was the Christian's fault.

In the Word-Faith movement (Kenyon, Hinn, Copeland, vpw, etc), this is a pretty

common practice- BLAME THE BELIEVER.

Guarantee success if a certain formula is enacted.

When the formula fails, claim the formula worked but the Christian failed to use the

formula properly.

Have you ever read Arthur Koestler's (of "The Thirteenth Tribe" fame) book "The Sleep Walkers"?

It documents great advancements in science that took place as the scientist dreamed at night after totally failing to get the answer by the normal methods. The most famous example is the chemist who dreamed of a ring of (I think 6) snakes devouring each others' tail in a circle. The next morning he solved his previously intractable problem and discovered benzine.

Reminds me how Psychology is no more YOUR field than it was vpw's field.

During sleep-time, it's well-known even among laymen that the mind is processing the

events of the last 24 hours, especially during REM sleep. Thus, after extensive study or

experience, it's good to give the mind sleep-time to process the memories.

I've made a point of doing just that, to maximize learning.

A number of times, I've solved something that I was stuck on by napping or resting my mind-

I've woken up with the answer worked out.

That's not revelation, nor a portentuous dream, that's the subconscious catching up and

drawing the connections the conscious mind missed.

Please allow my drawing attention to the understated.

I'd re-write your sentence to read "That is not IN MY OPINION how a MOG is to confront evil."

If God had a differing opinion for that particular set of situations, and then told vpw to do it in print, then that's God's business and He need not consult you about it.

Or course, that's a big "if" as I well know.

Would be strangely inefficient, considering all the more efficient ways God had

at his disposal in this example, from SNS tapes/hookups, to corps grad nights,

thru ROA keynote teachings, and so on.

If a God determined this would be THE method of transmission, one might logically

wonder if this God was serious about getting this news out after all....

...and of course, because of everyone's great learning capacity and retentive memories, I'm sure we are all now poised and ready to integrate the following more advanced information into the discussion.

From the Advanced Class syllabus' "16 Keys top Walking in the Spirit" we read:

Key #4 - Study the Word much. What you can know by the five senses God expects you to know.

Discuss and explain... if you can. <_<

And when what someone knew by their 5 senses contradicted what vpw and the inner circle

had decided, they were to discard what they knew by their 5 senses and do what the MOG

or MOGlet said. There's been plenty of examples posted, including Way Builders having

to redo completed jobs to an inferior standard because they were told to.

(And then there's the use of the inappropriate wood in Ohio, which has resulted

in a LOT of frivilous maintenance work to maintain wood that was never meant for

Ohio weather, just to rattle off a second example.)

A rule was a rule. Except when vpw decided it didn't apply. Then you just accepted

whatever came out of his mouth. (Some of us still do this one.)

Here's a theory:

It is a pretty well known fact that GreaseSpot is not a Christian site a fact that is routinely brought to the readers attention.(Usually at the first whiff of leather)

Actually, it's usually brought up at the first swing of the newly-arrived zealot's 2 x 4,

that their condemnation of us is based on something that's not a universal here, and thus

it's misplaced- as if any OTHER form of (metaphorical) 2 x 4 is proper...

Then again, they don't read the stickies, which is a basic rule of internet posting.

It's a pretty well-known fact that people have to be told the contents of one of the

stickies pretty routinely.

Just why exactly would you expect someone to share something like that ?

if someone's criticizing US for not following a rule, they should be practicing what

they're preaching to us. Don't tell me to abstain from extramarital/premarital sex

and boink someone not your spouse. Don't say I'm wrong for not invoking the Bible

and never invoke it yourself.

For that matter, I put my Bible discussions in DOCTRINAL where they belong.

Please also note, I wasn't the one who asked in the first place, but I thought your

question warranted an honest answer, and I saw it "first".

I believe the last person that asked for chapter and verse earlier this month was properly disected and burned at the stake in the usual record breaking time.

I believe you are incorrect.

That person arrived somewhere and immediately pronounced judgement upon everyone else.

That got responses, which were primarily due to poor manners and only incidentally

due to use of Scripture as his SPECIFIC bludgeon.

Furthermore,

calling what happened a "dissection", or "burning at the stake" is a gross mischaracterization.

As you saw, the poster survived, responded to some posts, and is still posting.

And I've noticed he's moderated his tone considerably, and his replies have

reflected that.

Feeling like some sort of "martyr"? The "burn at the stake" thing came from SOMEWHERE.

And if you knew more about burning at the stake, you'd be a LOT slower to compare

curt posting with flames searing flesh and lungs, burning hair and cloth.

You can't have it both ways complain because some one does not share and complain when they do ..........

If someone does something I like, but does it in the wrong manner,

I reserve the right to take exception.

Let's start with one example, Dr. Juedes. His "Godly Mission" is to expose the evils of twi.

Let's start with one exagerration- the claim that Juedes' "Godly Mission" is to expose twi's evil

when he only spends a few minutes a week here, and his congregation gets all of his time.

But talk to him about anything good that happened in twi, anything that glorifies God, or how folks got blessed, and he's not interested. It doesn't serve his purpose.

I'd be interested in seeing these supposed discussions. There's a difference between disinterest

in people getting blessed, and disinterest in sycophantic drivel. (And many things that are neither,

and are somewhere in between.) I'm suspicious I'm getting a less-than-fair appraisal of

Juedes' interests, especially when he's being mischaracterized as having a "Godly Mission"

to do stuff that's obviously a sideline for him.

Look, when people consider only bad and not good, something's wrong someplace!

But ignoring 99% of the bad, and considering only the good is perfectly healthy???

Goey if you ever talk to Dr. Juedes, mention to him that you probably got born again in twi (something you wrote a long time ago that I have never forgotten) and see what his reaction is.

Wouldn't hurt. If it's true, go ahead and say it, and see if he really just blows you

off like Oldies characterizes.

Golly, how about Rascal's false accusation that innocents died at VP's hands? She is condemning Wierwille for killing people, with no regard to Wierwilles heart or intent on these matters.

Make up your mind-

are you claiming you're unaware of anyone dying as a direct result of vpw? (DIRECT, yes.)

Or are you claiming that anyone dying as a direct result of vpw must be considered with his intent.

(Maybe he didn't MEAN to kill them, and his hands are clean no matter how dead

he made them...)

Wierwille gets regularly compared to the worst of the worst of society by some posters who focus and magnify his sins and see only through that little prism.

John Wayne Gacy was a pillar of his community, a member of the Jaycees, and

entertained children as Pogo the clown.

However, some people focus on his sins and see only through that little prism-

after all, he didn't spend a LOT of time killing children, just small amounts of it.

Can't you look at the ENTIRE man and not just his sins?

How accurate and helpful to Biblical research is KC Pillai?

+ Pillai admits to be raised as a Hindu in India. Indian culture is dominated by Hinduism, which is utterly opposite from Biblical worldview, and Islam. His views are dominated by Indian myth more than by Hebrew or Christian culture.

Here are two of Pillai's teachings. You decide if 1) they seem credible, and 2) what kind of thinking Pillai would have to have to concoct them.

+ Pillai says there is an actual fish that finds real money in lakes, swallows it, and keep it in a bag in its mouth. Some fishermen even today become rich if they catch this fish. He also claims that the white stone spoken of in Rev 2 actually refers to a stone a man received after paying a fine for molesting an unmarried girl. Why a receipt for the penalty for a criminal act would be used to reward someone who has overcome is not explained, nor is such a practice mentioned in the OT.

+ If both Pillai and Lamsa claim to have preserved true Biblical culture, why are they so different? And why are their stories very different even though they both claim to have preserved the original Biblical culture?

Just for fun...

Pillai specified the fish was called "mushat."

There's 4 fish called "mushat", which is an Arabic term. One of them is extant in the Red Sea,

the "chaetodon vagabundus", or "vagabond butterflyfish".

I can't find ANY mention of that fish picking up things, especially money, coins, etc.

Not by its common name, even, or its Latin name.

Got an A minus.

And I dispute a few of the questions.

I think he was teasing, Johnny.

waysider:

HaHaHa! Hey, Mike. Do you know why The Way used a horn of plenty to take up the offering? Way back when, they used to use regular collection plates. One night, someone forgot to bring some of the supplies needed for the meeting. Among those supplies were the collection plates. Uncle Harry went out into the hall looking for something he could use. He found a floral display, emptied it and used that instead. Thus, the use of the "cornacopia" for offerings was born. I heard that story straight from Dr. Wierwille's mouth and we all know that he wouldn't lie.

BTW---Do you think Jesus saw what he was doing as an "enterprise?

here’s an ancient scrap of paper that fell somewhere behind my desk, and it documents that the Sandskrit for “bag” is “cornucopia,” wink.gif but I can’t reach it.

[seems to me that this supposed Sanskrit meaning was cobbled together years later to add

legitimacy to what was already a practice that had become NORMATIVE.

When I asked about the 'horn of plenty' of a corps grad, I didn't get "well, it's from the Sanskrit..."

I got an answer about symbology.]

Ok, here we go again.

The subject being questioned is vpw's coming up with the way tree structure, and making sure all the money

went to him and stayed there-as opposed to any staying locally like had happened before and was directly

what he was ending.

Mike claimed that Jesus did it first.

"Didn't Jesus have a horn o'plenty passed around to collect money for his enterprise and give the people an opportunity to give above their temple tithes?"

I challenged him to prove this claim.

He came back with verses saying that when Judas was said to hold the money for the apostles,

this meant the SAME THING.

I disagree.

I say these verses show Judas handled the money for the apostles, but say nothing of how they GOT the money.

Any of several possibilities could explain how they got the money.

However, to invoke ANY of them in the absence of a verse is what vpw called 'private interpretation.'

(And what other people might call 'pulling it out of your donkey.')

On the other hand,

Judas took the money meant for Jesus, and spent it on himself, embezzling it.

Now,

THAT sounds like the way tree in action.

=========

We're still supposedly discussing the way tree and how it was used as a substitute for the movement

of God that immediately preceeded it, and stole all its money.

Is there any chance Mike will stay on-topic, or will we see a trip to the land of

"let's change the subject and hope nobody notices?"]

No these aren't straws I'm holding.

What I reported about Judas I got from Bo Reahard's Orientalisms class and Bishop Pillai tapes.

[i thought you were joking about the Sanskrit thing. You're saying that the bs Sanskrit thing was someone else's

fault, it seems. And what did it have to do with the way tree?]

GADS! You people are all so busy criticizing a set of teachings that you either can't remember or never got!

[YOU brought it up....and there still seems no real relevance to the discussion...]

YES, Judas is misunderstood. People focus on his negatives and ignore his positives. Jesus selected him as an apostle. He worked for Jesus as the treasurer of Jesus "entourage." He was sent out WOW. paired off with some other apostle and healed people and cast out spirits. He blessed people BIGTIME!

Nobody was criticizing Judas, except me NOW saying he was an embezzler, which vpw agreed with...

Where's this all coming from?]

Yes, he did great wrong... but sticking to this negative side, which was worse? ...his betrayal of Jesus or his giving up and committing suicide and missing pneuma hagion on Pentecost?

[both were bad-but why bring up EITHER? We were discussing the way tree!]

The whole point to Dr teaching us "The Day Judas Hanged Himself" was to show that GOD LOVED HIM, even though he had betrayed His son. Heck, we do the same thing, spiritually equivalent, when we grieve the Holy Spirit, and God still forgives us. God forgave Judas; he was a wonderful man. ...a man of GOD! ...an APOSTLE!

God loved him. God forgave him. God offered him the new birth!

I think some of you people need to see that.

[i think some of you people need to remember that posting on a topic should in some way REFLECT THE TOPIC,

and not form some sermon that had nothing to do with it and nobody disagreed with in the first place....]

***

How would YOU try to convince someone in Uriah's family that David was still a man of God?

Think about it for a minute. It would be a good exercise in "creative" writing to come up with a plan to convince Uriah's brother that David still got revelation from God after him murdering Uriah. Try it. Then apply that thinking to Judas. Force yourself to look at the good side that HE DID HAVE.

[Now we're on to a DIFFERENT "Weapon of Mass Distraction", Mike's pretend doctrine that everyone knew that

David killed Uriah-which was disproven at least twice, six months apart, and both by me.]

Ask yourself... if you were one of the Twelve apostles (not Judas) and you found out that it was Judas after all, would YOU break bread with him in the Upper Room? Pray with him at the proper times? Would you be of the mindset that COULD forgive him, or would you operate in the mindset that you do when you think of VPW and only magnify to the skies all the reasons to NOT forgive him?

***

Hey!

All this money stuff I've said, all this Judas stuff I've said... we were all taught it.

All us OLGs at least.

Why doesn't anyone remember it?

You've said the BS Uriah-David stuff before. Judas we already knew about-and weren't disagreeing with,

and it had NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING.

Why don't you notice that?

I'd say it would be very hard for anyone with any common sense to come to the conclusion that Leuchter's findings are FLAWED, as you claim they are. Why? Because basic laws of physics would have to be broken to support the exterminist's point of view for one to come to the conclusion that Leuchter's findings are likewise flawed.

You'd say a great deal. Some of it, at times, is sensible to the average, literate adult.

Leuchter supposedly wanted to test a surface for the presence of a poison that was present over 40 years before.

As I learned back in high school, one problem with poison gas is that it is highly reactive-that's why it's poisonous.

(That's why I can clear out chlorine fumes by introducing an open flame, which forces a chemical reaction

called burning-but technically is OXIDATION, meaning I force it to react and combine with oxygen.

Nobody had to tell me I could do it, either.)

Given 40 years, the amount of chemical present somewhere would be extremely small, due to the passage of

40 years, and re-reaction at the microscopic level like always happens.

Given exposure to the elements (WEATHER), 40 years of exposure will dilute the presence of any chemical.

Given rebuilding, some of the bricks that had been exposed to poison had been moved, and some bricks that

were NOW there were introduced later and were never exposed to poison because they hadn't been around

when the poison gas was released.

So, Leuchter, who acted on his own without permission and desecrated a grave,

took some bricks- which we would call STEALING FROM A MONUMENT.

He either knew that he might have taken the wrong bricks, and if they were the right bricks, they might have

been exposed to poison and been purged of it in the DECADES since due to weather and time,

or he did not.

If he DID know, then he deliberately engaged in fraud.

If he did NOT know, he's just as incompetent as even one of his own history revisionists called him.

Then, he sent the "sample" (which was grossly below standards for a sample when I was in HIGH SCHOOL)

to a lab. He then made an amazingly elementary "mistake"-

he didn't tell them he wanted the SURFACE tested. So, they pulverized the sample and tested the AGGREGATE.

Either he knew this would ruin the sample-which means he engaged in fraud-

or he did not know-which means, again, he's an incompetent.

The lab took the sample, and judged the aggregate as having no discernable level of poison.

Of course, if there HAD been discernable levels, they would have been on the SURFACES, and the AGGREGATE

diluted what little there was further yet.

So, the "sample" might have been from bricks that hadn't been AT the facility when people were getting gassed.

If they HAD been, they'd been exposed to time and weather for DECADES.

Whatever was left was then DILUTED by combining the exposed surfaces with the unexposed majority of the

brick. The presence of poison was not detected.

DUUUUUHHHHH.

If one pulled aside people from the labs in my old HIGH SCHOOL, they could have made the same conclusions

the rest of us do- the sample was so badly compromised that the results won't tell you ANYTHING if they come back

negative-and the chance of the sample coming back positive after exposure to poison and then the conditions this

sample was exposed to is almost nil.

It doesn't take a LOT of science to understand that-a high schooler's understanding of practical chemistry is enough.

However,

WTH's understanding of "basic laws of physics" gets invoked here. WTH thinks the understanding of all this

contradicts the "basic laws of physics."

What results is a pastiche of parrotting back whatever Leuchter said,

and lots of insults to anyone who disagrees.

=========

Frankly,

the last time I saw someone trying to misdirect this badly was when someone claimed their doctrine

was correct, and for it to not work,

"God would have to change the laws of the universe."

Now, we have "basic laws of physics would have to be broken."

SSDD.

i am alittle confused about the sticky topic, cannot find it. sarckat

It's labeled as "pinned". It's what's normally CALLED a "sticky", just labeled differently.

The title is "Welcome to the Greasespot Cafe" and it's up above the other topics here.

You can click on it here:

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=7913

As I remember it went from $65.00 t0 $85.00 somewhere in 74-75 I paid $65.00 which was a sizable amount of money in those days for me. But when you consider that you got five hardbound books and a syllabus in binder and a one year subscription to The Way Magazine. In addition to the taped material thats pretty cheap. I don't think at that point they made that much off each student as the books got cheaper or nonexistent and the price went up they did better on the profit end I'm sure. Either way I think it was money well spent in terms of the benifit to me over the years. Despite the way things turned out and the fact that everything was not as beneficial as I once maybe thought it was today, I still feel it was a bargin.

$65 for 5 hardbound books, syllabus, 1-year subscription.

The books were cheap and easy to produce (so long as you have access to the reproductive facilities),

and these were not big textbooks-they were little novel-sized things, with not much print on a page.

The largest have pages with 1/2 the text of a standard textbook on it, with fewer pages than in a standard textbook.

The expenses were all covered in-house-

-The supposed author was not needed to be paid separate royalties

-No license fees were ever paid for the material from other sources

-the printing's stages were ALL done in-house and thus only cost (once the machines are paid for) were a factor

-distribution was handled FREE by us locals

-limited amounts of tapes were produced, and used over, and over, and over, showing signs of wear no normal

tapes would show

The costs to print up all the materials for a $65 class were less than $20.

The RETAIL PRICE at a bookstore for the $65 class would be under $40 in the year you took it,

and that's adding PROFIT of various kinds-for distributor, seller, author, publishing company.

They made a considerable amount per class, if 6 people were paying students per class.

====

Mind you, whether or not you feel like you got something useful for the money is a separate issue-

they were WELL-PAID for what you received, whether or not you got a benefit.

(And good for you-you feel you benefitted from it.

Me, I feel I got some benefit as well.)

Didn't Jesus have a horn o'plenty passed around to collect money for his enterprise and give the people an opportunity to give above their temple tithes?

May I challenge you to show from scripture that teaching and preaching God's Word was supposed to ALWAYS be a freebee?

you may challenge me to that....

Right after YOU show from Scripture (The Bible) that Jesus "had a horn o'plenty passed around to collect money for his enterprise

and give the people an opportunity to give above their temple tithes."

(Or EQUIVALENT, of course- if you can find it but it's called something else or shaped differently,

of course, that would still count.

You first....

That's something OUR CULTURE teaches with a vengeance but I don't see that same attitude in Eastern culture. Ministering is just as much (and much more) an honorable service to perform for someone as window cleaning or waitressing, so WHY not expect cash for it? In Eastern culture people know that they owe MORE for receiving the teaching and preaching God's Word than for receiving food, clothing, or entertainment.

I observe business as a hobby. I see how the SIZES of the tips for people like waitresses are a voluntary thing, but it's still considered dishonorable to stiff them after the have worked for us in service. Not so in our culture for the service of teaching and preaching God's Word in our broken culture, severely broken on this account. Why should a preacher not be able to charge for his services, but it’s fine for a plumber or a tree trimmer to do so?

A plumber gets charged by the job- or works for a company that does, and receives a fixed salary from them

for doing so.

A waiter or waitress' salary is minimal. They work with the expectation that they will receive tips for good work.

Therefore, as most people would consider it, to skip tipping them is to deprive them of part of their livelihood.

(Don't like it? There's places where the tip is automatically deducted and assigned to them, and you

don't have to calculate.

Still don't like it? Eat at Mc Donald's. No tipping expected.)

A minister can receive a salary, and that's fine with me. His church either gets a tithe, or survives on donations.

One or the other is EXPECTED in our society.

Expecting a "tip" for preaching is a lot like expecting a "tip" for voting in the Senate.

We call that a "bribe."

Both men already GOT a salary-a living wage they can support their family on.

Preaching is part of the JOB of a minister- a basic expectation for all ministers unless specified otherwise.

Voting on bills is EXPECTED for Congressmen.

In our culture if a preacher delivers good feeling to a churchgoer it’s not considered stealing to walk out of the church “tipping” that preacher nothing or for contributing far less than what the preacher’s service provided. We will willingly pay $100 for one hour’s good feeling on a psychiatrist’s couch or for many other kinds of counseling, but not for preaching?

I have no doubt that you believe vpw's dismissal of Psychiatrists as "give a good feeling"

is a fair and accurate summary of their job. However, it's woefully ignorant.

A Psychiatrist must go to MEDICAL SCHOOL, and is a MEDICAL DOCTOR.

That's why they have "MD" at the end of their name.

A Psychiatrist is trained in both medicine and in Psychology, which is years of training all by itself.

You either spoke on the field of someone who spent 4 years in college, 2 years or more in Medical School,

and then 2 or more years in internship before BEGININNG their career lacking a basic understanding of their

training,

or knew all that and dismissed most of a decade's work casually.

A Psychiatrist doesn't just sit on a couch so you can get a good feeling.

Both they and LICENSED Psychologists spend years in training so they can offer more than that.

If sitting there and making appreciative noises was all it took, every Theater major in college would be

able to get a Psychology license upon graduation.

"COUNSELING" contains the word "counsel". That means they're supposed to be offering COUNSEL.

(and every PARTLY-competent one DOES).

I'm not going to try and summarize what type of counsel they offer.

In the case of a Psychiatrist, however, it's often for more severe cases, since a Psychiatrist is called in

when someone requires the use of Psychatric medication to function properly in society.

(That's so people don't go into violent fits in public, or hallucinations, or suicidal depressions, or any

of dozens of other things.) They have to monitor the effects of the medication, the non-effects,

the other symptoms not affected by medication, drug interactions with everything from what's perscribed

to the advil they took for a headache last night, all while still listening and offering professional counsel.

THAT's why we pay a Psychiatrist by the hour.

It’s our culture that’s broken on this matter of insisting that teaching and preaching God's Word MUST be always free of monetary charge. We should be willing to pay MORE for that.

As an educational exercise, might some dutiful poster search out HOW it is that our culture has developed such a screwy hang-up like this? I might throw out one possibility: Elmer Gantry.

It's our poster's expectation that this is what's broken.

Real ministers make a decent salary.

And they don't do it for the money.

Or for cars, motorcycles, planes, or free labour at their home.

And they cover their shopping trips from their salary, not from the collection plate the church gets.

If a supposed minister doesn't find that sufficient, he is in the WRONG line of work, for he has

let a love of money interfere with his love for God and God's people.

A minister making enough to satisfy all his needs and his family's needs

(food, home, transportation, education for kids, clothing, basic entertainment and so on)

should not feel the need for ONE PENNY MORE.

He should be focusing on DOING HIS JOB.

BTW,

a lot of you probably don't know or don't remember......

....when twi finally put up a website,

the first thing of any substance they put up was the Terms and Conditions.

There was nothing of substance-even twi-level- but there were elaborate warnings

to not use the material that wasn't even there.

Is it a matter of the lawyers governing the ministry,

or did they really think the most important part of what they had to offer online

was the Terms and Conditions?

If it's the latter, I AGREE. There's nothing else useful on their site.

In other news,

the only other time I saw an elaborate warning like that was on a DIFFERENT site

with delusions of grandeur and ridiculous content.

Quite a bit.

for one.. the lab he sent the "samples" to, he didn't tell them it was surface contamination that they should test for. They wouldn't have crushed the samples. It diluted any trace of cyanide to probably thousandths of what a surface examination would have revealed.

I posted a few other legitimate claims:

after that many years, humidity and the elements would make it quite unlikely to find ANY cyanide.

Some of the bricks were from a museum, a recreation, and were never involved in gassing to begin with..

Some may have been exposed to water in the spring, for decades..

some of his argument depended on finding levels of the chemical that would be needed for delousing, which would be a lot more than a level that would prove lethal to a human being.

The facts suggest that zyklon B would be a poor choice for delousing, but a rather good choice for gassing people.

Besides all of this.. a person can argue the science all they want.. I still ask,

"what about the shoes"..

Personally.. I think when some people are confronted with man's darker nature, they kinda flip out..

These are pretty elementary mistakes for Leuchter to make.

Back in HIGH SCHOOL, I would have gotten in trouble for making mistakes this basic in a lab.

Then again, my high school lab teachers had a higher standard for accuracy than Leuchter has.

They have titles, which reflect the study they put in, and that they know what they claim they know.

That's why the don't make amateurish mistakes.

(Mind you, even many amateurs would avoid such mistakes.)

Then again,

perhaps Leuchter DID know a CAREFUL analysis would risk disproving his thesis.

So,

either Leuchter is a barely-competent amateur, who made elementary mistakes that were easily

avoided, and lacks the wit to acknowledge them when raised and said

"Wait-they're right. This would compromise the results."

or

Leuchter knew FULL WELL in advance that he selected methods that were flawed,

in order to deliberately obtain flawed results,

which means he did NOT want ACCURATE results, but preferred FLAWED results.

Either way,

WTH's pinned his ideology on this.

It's as foolish as pinning one's full understanding of the Bible on a sermonizer,

or a homileticist, or something.

This may be a dumb question,but is there anything out there that refutes Leuchter's results,or methodology,other than he didn't have the credentials?....