WordWolf

Wordwolf, I guess you can't help spinning.

[spinning: when WordWolf says something Oldiesman can't refute with evidence or

facts, requiring him to make accusations and personal attacks if he's to

hang on tightly to his pet positions]

I don't know where Allan stands on his beliefs regarding this topic, he can speak for himself,

I didnt mean Allan, I meant What They Hey-

as WTH has just reminded me.

Just swap their names in the previous post.]

but I've stated that I don't know quite what to believe regarding the holocaust. I support reading all the books, to get all viewpoints. I support someone reading the books from twi, to get the revisionist view.

[up to a point, skepticism is good.

Considering all viewpoints and reading all viewpoints works up to a point.

After that, it's either postponing an unpleasant decision,

or refusing to declare one's position because it's unpopular.

We see this every election year when candidates suddenly get silent

or evasive on specific issues.]

But that's not the same as endorsing the books as truth, or the same as being a neo-nazi or anti-semite. If you think it is, that's your problem. I support free speech and the freedom to read and consider opposition viewpoints. Please don't misrepresent my position.

I never called you a neo-nazi nor an anti-semite.

I said you supported the position that Neo-Nazis put forth.

That they are the ones putting this forth should be obvious by now,

and I can supply links if you wish to contest this and waste time.

That leaves whether or not you "supported" the position.

All parts of their supposed evidence have been refuted

(in 20 pages of thread),

yet you continue to post as though it has not,

and that there's equal amounts of evidence supporting both sides.

If you prefer,

I can just say that you've argued FOR their position and maintained

that it has merit even after it's been completely refuted.

That's obvious from previous posts,

and most people WOULD call that "supporting" one side,

and NOT maintaining an objectivity or neutrality.

If you don't want to call it that, whatever.]

What I DO think is that there's an existing propaganda machine that uses the holocaust issue as propaganda, to have Americans fork over billions of dollars to Israel every year.

[That puts you in agreement with certain groups you don't want me to mention

the name of, but me not naming them doesn't mean the other posters

don't see the connection without me....]

If there is DNA evidence, it would suggest (not prove) that there are some (not all) Eastern European Jews that descended from Isrealite Jews. Kevin Alan Brook (author of: The Jews of Khazaria) shows convincing evidence that Eastern European Jews descended from both the Khazarian and the Israelite Jews.

Are Russian Jews Descended from the Khazars?

A Reassessment Based upon the Latest Historical, Archaeological, Linguistic, and Genetic Evidence

by Kevin Alan Brook

The entire point that is made of the supposed Khazar connection has nothing to do with

including the Khazars in the family tree.

It is ENTIRELY about EXCLUDING THE JEWS from the family tree.

Are some Khazars in some bloodlines of some Eastern European Jews?

Yes, and nobody ever questioned that.

The assertion was that the Khazar bloodline REPLACED the Jew bloodline entirely

in Ashkenazi Jews, and that was what the book said.

That was DISPROVEN.

Then vpw & lcm came along and said ALL Jews are descended from Khazars

and not from Jewish bloodlines not Khazars EVER.

That was never even on the table for discussion,

but they taught it.

Figures, you'd hit the most obvious movie with Corey Haim.

So, I'll get a little creative.....

Licensed to Drive

Heather Graham

Boogie Nights

("Never thought you'd see a Mercedes fit in the trunk of a BMW, did you?")

Lifted up, not quite ... together with disputing the 6 million number, the books give facts and opinions for advancing the idea that the deaths were caused by reasons other than genocide.

The books support every idea except that

A) Hitler and Nazi Germany decided to attempt to exterminate Jews in Germany,

B) and then carried out a program to exterminate Jews in Germany,

C) and thus succeeded in killing millions of Jews in Germany.

Feel free to review the 20-page discussion we had, which I linked to.

Almost all of us view the evidence that they did all of those is conclusive and

non-equivocal.

Allan and Oldiesman claim the opposite position.

(Is it a coincidence that the only supporters of the neo-Nazi position

are those who are diehard vpw supporters? Some think it's not....)

The Thirteenth Tribe advances the idea that some modern Jews came from the Khazars, not from one of the 12 tribes. That idea has not been proven false. What has been proven false is to say that ALL OF TODAYS JEWS or ALL ASHKANAZI JEWS are from the Khazars. That has been disproven, thru DNA as Wordwolf said.

(Wikipedia again.)

"Koestler's thesis that Ashkenazi Jews are not Semitic has become an important claim of many anti-Semitic groups. Some Palestinian advocates have adopted this thesis quite eagerly, since they believe identifying most Jews as non-Semitic would seriously undermine their historical claims to the land of Israel."

Koestler's position, in and of itself,

was that the Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars and NOT Semetic AT ALL.

Period. Not even a little. All Khazars who converted.

THAT idea HAS been proven false thru DNA evidence.

Now, some people (like vpw and lcm) took the content of Koestler's book and misread its

contents and implications, so they came away with the idea that

"all today's Jews are from the Khazars and not Semetic at all, not even a little, only

Khazars who converted."

That, technically, was not the book's contents, but an exaggeration of its contents.

The actual contents WERE disproven, and the exaggeration is ridiculously false.

That having been said,

if vpw said it, some people will make that the final word in any discussion.

(Reminds me, I wonder how our little friend's anti-GSC messageboard is doing?)

Is there such a thing as an "on-again, off-again" true minister...???

According to vpw,

there is no such thing as an "on-again, off-again" true CHRISTIAN.

Luke 9:62. (KJV)

"But Jesus said to him,

'No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

Weren't those books concerned with disputing the NUMBER of Jews killed by the German Nazi regime? PLEASE correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think they disputed that the above killings happened. A very wide disparity with the "accepted" six million, yes, but still I think the main point was disputing the number.

The Thirteenth Tribe claimed the modern Jews were essentially counterfeit Jews.

(DNA testing has disproven this one entirely.)

Myth of the Six Million...

Here's what wikipedia says about the author, David Hoggan...

"In 1955, Barnes encouraged Hoggan to turn his dissertation into a book, which was published in West Germany as Der Erzwungene Krieg (The Forced War), a book which blamed the outbreak of World War Two due to an alleged Anglo-Polish conspiracy to wage aggression against Germany headed by the British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax and the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who were allegedly assisted by Polish Foreign Minister Colonel Józef Beck in what Hoggan called a monstrous anti-German plot. Hoggan argued that Hitler's foreign policy was entirely peaceful and moderate, and that it was Nazi Germany that was in Hoggan's opinion an innocent victim of Allied aggression. Moreover, Hoggan accused the Polish government of engaging in what he called hideous persecution of its German minority, and claimed that the Polish government's policies towards the ethnic German minority were far worse then the Nazi regime's policies towards the Jewish minority. Hoggan justified the huge one billion Reich-mark fine imposed on the entire Jewish community in Germany after the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom as a reasonable measure to prevent what he called "Jewish profiteering" at the expense of German insurance companies and alleged that no Jews were killed in the Kristallnacht. A particular area of controversy centered around Hoggan’s claim that the situation of German Jewry before World War Two was extremely favorable to the Jewish community in Germany, and that none of the various anti-Semitic laws and measures of the Nazis had any deleterious effects on German Jews.

In the early 1960s, Hoggan's book attracted much attention, and was the subject of a cover story in Der Spiegel magazine in its May 13, 1964 edition. Hoggan’s thesis was widely attacked as wrong-headed. Further increasing fanning the flames of the criticism was the revelation that Hoggan had received his research funds from and that he himself was a member of several neo-Nazi groups in the United States and West Germany, and the charge that Hoggan had wilfully misinterpreted and falsified historical evidence to fit his argument. Another source of controversy lie with Hoggan's choice of publisher, the firm of Grabert Verlag which was run by former Nazi who made little secret of his belief that Germany should have won World War Two. When Der Erzwungene Krieg was translated into English in 1989, it was published by the Institute for Historical Review.

One of Hoggan's leading detractors was the historian Hans Rothfels, the director of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute for Contemporary History), who used the journal of the Institute, the Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte to attack Hoggan and his work, which Rothfels saw as sub-standard pseudo-history attempting to masquerade as serious scholarship. In a lengthy letter to the editor of the American Historical Review in 1964, Rothfels exposed Hoggan's membership in a neo-Nazi group. Another leading critic was the U.S. historian Gerhard Weinberg, who wrote an harsh book review in the October 1962 edition of the American Historical Review. In response, Barnes and Hoggan wrote a series of letters attempting to rebut Weinberg's arguments, who in his turn wrote letters replying to and rebutting the arguments of Hoggan and Barnes. The exchanges between Hoggan and Barnes on one side and Weinberg on the other became increasing rancorous and vitriolic to such an extend that in October 1963 the editors of the American Historical Review announced that they cease publishing letters relating to Hoggan’s book in the interests of decorum.

In a 1964 article, the German historian Helmut Krausnick, who was of the leading scholars associated with the Institute for Contemporary History accused Hoggan of manufacturing much of his "evidence". Hoggan’s former professors at Harvard described his book as bearing no resemblance to the PhD dissertation that he had submitted in 1948. Another point of criticism was the decision of two German historical societies to award Hoggan the Leopold von Ranke and Ulrich von Hutten Prizes for outstanding scholarship; many such as the historian Gordon A. Craig felt that by honouring Hoggan, these societies had destroyed the value of the awards. The majority opinion of historians was that Hoggan’s work was a worthless book that merely sought to acquit Adolf Hitler of responsibility for World War Two.

In following years, Hoggan maintained a close association with various neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial groups. In 1969 Hoggan wrote a book The Myth of the Six Million denying the Holocaust and another one in 1985 called The Myth of New History that once again denied the Holocaust. In the 1980s, Hoggan was a leading member of the Institute for Historical Review (I.H.R) and a featured speaker at the I.H.R.’s Sixth Conference in 1985. Hoggan died in Menlo Park, California. Hoggan's work has remained popular with anti-Semitic groups, but is generally dismissed by historians as little more than an apologia for Nazi Germany. In the opinion of historians such as Lucy Dawidowicz and Deborah E. Lipstadt, Hoggan was a pioneer of the Holocaust Denial industry in the 1960s, and he has been accused of blazing a trail that many subsequent Holocaust deniers followed."

Here's what Wikipedia has on him & it in their 'Holocaust denial' entry...

"A prominent early Holocaust denier was the American historian David Hoggan, who wrote a book in 1961 called the Der Erzwungene Krieg (The Forced War), which was primarily concerned with the origins of World War Two, but also down-played or justified the effects of Nazi anti-Semitic measures in the pre-1939 period. Subsequently, Hoggan wrote one of the first books denying the Holocaust in 1969 entitled The Myth of the Six Million, which was published by the Noontide Press, a small Los Angles based publisher noted for specializing in anti-Semitic literature. Hoggan became one of the early stars of the Holocaust denial movement, because he had a number of professorships at prestigious universities."

And wikipedia on "the Hoax of the Twentieth Century"...

"The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry is a book by Arthur R. Butz. It has been seen as having formed the basis of much of the Holocaust denial movement, of those who deny that the Germans attempted to exterminate the Jews of Europe during World War II. It has been subject to a number of attempts to prevent its display at library events, and its importation to Canada.

It was first published in 1975 by Historical Review Press (Great Britain)."

And wikipedia on its author, Arthur Butz....

"Arthur Butz is an American Holocaust denier and professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern University. He has been tenured there since 1974.

In 1976, Butz wrote The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, in which he asserted that the Holocaust (a) did not occur and (b) has been deliberately contrived in order to justify the creation of the state of Israel.

Most recently, Butz attracted attention when he issued a statement in which he agreed with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's alleged statement that the Holocaust is a "myth." In a press release dated December 18, 2005, Butz wrote, "I congratulate him [Ahmadinejad] on becoming the first head of state to speak out clearly on these issues [the alleged fabrication of the Holocaust], and regret only that it was not a Western head of state. His political remarks receive no comment on my side. By 'political remarks' I mean those that deal with questions of what ought to happen now." "

=================

Looks to me like those books "dispute that the above killings happened."

You're welcome.

:)

As far as VPW's reason (s) for showing "The Hiding Place", I dont know if it matters much. From my knowledge of Nazi thinking, gleaned from my (plentiful?) WWII and preceeding years studies, I believe the showing of such a film for any reason would be repugnant to a true Nazi, since the film displays persecution and killing of Jewish people.

I don't think twi was a neo-nazi or any other kind,

but he sure expressed a lot of pathos and sympathy for them,

and never seemed to condemn them in the middle of all that.

Most of his anti-Jew, anti-Israel stuff seemed to be US-grown conspiracy stuff

swallowed whole after being manufactured from whole cloth by the

John Birch Society and the Liberty Lobby.

BTW,

we had 20 pages of discussion on this here...

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...c=9836&st=0

Perhaps someone can confirm or refute something I read long ago about

two fingers outward becoming "v for victory", famous under Churchill in WW2,

(and then later being "the peace sign",

and two fingers inward-pointing meaning "up your nose".

I've never read any RELIABLE account of "amputate a finger"

for enemies in time of war.

It's always been more efficient to amputate the opponent's HEAD and then

you know for SURE he can't kill any of your men.

One of the things about dealing with real people-and not robots-

is that they can hold contradictory thoughts at the same time.

So,

vpw could-at least part of the time-

believe every word he was saying about the auditorium

needing to be about God and NOT people, even himself

and-at least part of the time-

see it as nothing less than his due that the auditorium

was named after him.

It's not that different from preaching God's love and grace

one afternoon, then drugging and raping a female that night.

None of that changes his SINCERITY.

As vpw HIMSELF said, the salesman who tries to sell you

the toothbrush with only one bristle, he has to be very

sincere when he's talking to you.

yes, I did misunderstand...so...is this right?

Sigourney Weaver

Working Girl

Harrison Ford

*checks the cast of Copycat*

Yes, that was correct.

Connected from the last one, into another movie, then another actor.

Which means the next person has to connect into another movie

to actor to movie.

Let's see...

Star Wars

Carrie Fisher

Blues Brothers

In principle,

I agree with you 100% on this one, Sudo.

In this specific instance,

the "out" is that this is taking off from Superman 2,

where the setup for this was part of the script,

back in the 70s when it aired.

So, this isn't exactly out-of-the-blue, 'just from this year' stuff.

What never ceases to amaze me, is how somebody's second hand experience takes prededence over those of us who were really there.

Just shows to go ya.......

Ex10,

Feel free to enlighten us with your FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE anytime.

Others have done so.

I just reviewed the thread.

In the past 12 pages, you refused to share your experiences and answer questions

that were raised.

Hey, totally free to do so. If you feel you'd cross a personal boundary in even the

most vague descriptions of events, that's your decision. I draw lines here on what I

will share as well.

HOWEVER,

having decided where to draw the line,

doesn't it strike you as a little unfair to expect people to automatically presume

that all the stuff you chose NOT to share should cause them to agree with you?

"I was there. I refuse to say what happened, but it was positive and you're

wrong to criticize it" doesn't fly in most discussions on most subjects.

I'm sure you can see why.

I for one have no problem evaluating testimony or information trying to shed a

positive light on Momentus. However, I can't do that if no one's presenting any.

And no, I'm not getting ready to beat on people with positive stories.

(Although some people's approach, as in

"This is why it's good, and everyone who disagrees is possessed!" would beg

for dissent if it was used. That's different. That's objecting to the approach.)

And hey...a number of 'promises' were delivered !

And if Mussolini succeeded in getting the trains to run on time,

people STILL would have complained about the lies, deceptions,

and autocratic control over their lives.

I honestly don't remember whether Kid E was from Earth-S or Earth-4, and I'm not inclined to go look it up.

If he was ORIGINALLY from the Charlton "Earth 4" stable, they fitted him into

the Earth-S stuff. This was probably (if they did) done because it made sense to them

to mix him in with the Marvel Family.

After all, the wizard Shazam's base was the Rock of Eternity.

The one time I saw him before CoIE, the first words out of his mouth were

"Why not? After all, I live on the same block as the elders!"

The "elders" being the mystic sextet that gave Marvel his powers-

Solomon (wisdom), Hercules (strength), Atlas (stamina), Zeus (power),

Achilles ("courage"-or invulnerability if you ask the fans),

Mercury (speed). So they wrote him and Mr Keeper into that setting.

WW, one small point: the 60's heroes were "Silver Age," not "Golden Age." (That was the 40's.)

The old school, JSA "Golden Agers" retired in the 50s supposedly due to the

actions of the House Unamerican Activities Committee.

So, when do we get a "World's Finest" (Superman-Batman) team-up?

George

The FANS filmed one. It's online.

I haven't seen it, but I have seen "Batman:Dead End",

when he faced a truly unique foe.

In case anyone's unclear,

Pirate had the last correct answer,

and has posted a quote.

So, it is Pirate's turn right now.

Hm.

Thought it was Creedence Clearwater's Revival "Down On the Corner",

but no dice.

Some of you seem to be suggesting the board possibly lied to people in twi,

or taught things one way (virtuous), then acted another and made THAT their policy (carnal).

Do you guys actually think that?

WW, do you really want to know the answer or are you asking in jest?

Both.

Since some posters seem to be of the conviction that the official releases are

ALWAYS to be trusted,

I wanted to hear what others had to say on the subject.

Some of you seem to be suggesting the board possibly lied to people in twi,

or taught things one way (virtuous), then acted another and made THAT their policy (carnal).

Do you guys actually think that?

More spin.

No-selective memory on Oldies' part.

They said this,

but Oldies' defense is that it was illogical for them to do so.

Oldies keeps assuming that whenever twi contradicted twi,

the part he doesn't want to believe never was said, or never happened.

twi taught that when and where one rightly divides the word of truth, they have the true word. So a group, any group, according to twi, may rightly divide the word in one area, and wrongly divide the word in another.

That would mean, groups can and do teach and have truth when they rightly divide the word.

And it's also technically true that lcm claimed his reasons for demanding unwavering

loyalty were exclusively for spiritually-sound reasons.

And it's also technically true that an official twi spokesman claimed that twi keeps

their thralls informed on everything.

It's true they SAID these things.

And once they said them, they gave them all the attention a dog gives to a fireplug.

So, once twi finished saying that, they then proceeded to go thru what still remains

TO THIS DAY their policy-

that non-twi Christians-even the ones who left and teach most of the same things-

do not have The Truth because what they teach is not ALL 100% Truth,

which only twi has and even 99.44% Truth is not good enough,

and shame on you for even thinking so.

Wordwolf stated:

"They STILL teach they are the ONLY ones with The Truth."

Still is spin. I think that statement is inaccurate and deceptive.

You may misread and misinterpret that all you want.

However,

the eyewitness report of how things are proceeding now contradicts

how you WISH to interpret things.

Penguin said

"As long as twi still teaches that they are the only true household of God, they continue the lie that they are the only ones with the truth. I have many friends who will not leave twi even though they are miserable because they think twi is only place with the truth."

Of course,

we're supposed to discard Penguin's eyewitness account for the opinion

of Oldiesman who hasn't attended a meeting in a decade

because Oldiesman wants to believe he's correct.

We're also supposed to discard the fact that the two statements-

Shaz and WordWolf's statements-

don't contradict each other unless one is busy trying to whitewash twi

and excuse them from puffing up themselves and slamming other

Christians.

In case anyone here is as deficient as Oldies in reading comprehension,

I'll recap a few of the last few posts.

(Those with short memories may appreciate this as well.)

=======================

Shazdancer said

QUOTE(shazdancer @ Jul 6 2006, 08:07 PM) *

"Oldies,

We're not saying Wierwille thought we were the only ones with any of the truth, we're saying that Wierwille declared TWI to be the MOST accurate."

Oldies replied

"Shaz, that's not what Wordwolf said."

WordWolf's actual answer-which was a reporting of twi's opinion-not his own-

was

"The TWI answer, ALWAYS and still to this day,

is that different groups have SOME of the truth, but fail in OTHERS.

So, twi spin is STILL "nobody else has ENOUGH of the truth to effectively have "Truth."

Oldies apparently missed where my answer and Shaz's answer aligned.

That my answer was factually correct was borne out by Penguin, who

addressed the current teachings as follows:

"As long as twi still teaches that they are the only true household of God, they continue the lie that they are the only ones with the truth. I have many friends who will not leave twi even though they are miserable because they think twi is only place with the truth."

It can seem baffling that Oldies seems to be dedicated to denying this was EVER taught,

but Physicists are used to observing things that seem to make no sense to them,

and I expect we can adjust our expectations accordingly.

Hello, Twinky.

You might have missed this post...

If you knew a bit more about archery, you'd know this couldn't be correct.

(I've never arched an arrow, but I'm familiar with it intellectually.)

First of all, a bow with a strong pull needs more than one finger to pull.

Typically, IIRC, the European draw-which is the draw used in this story-

is done with a sort-of claw of the first 2 fingers drawing back the bow.

(That's tough on the fingers, so the first 3 might be used, or an

archery glove-thing worn.)

Second,

the Mongolian draw works just as well.

That's an actual "plucking" of the bowstring,

where the index finger and thumb pinch the string and draw.

I gave this thought because Robert Wuhl told this story on a comedy

special fairly recently.

He ends it with the words "Is it true? Doesn't matter..."

and explains why he thinks it doesn't matter.

Of course, as soon as he admitted he didn't know, I snickered

and let it slide.

Hello.

My general advice to new arrivals is here:

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

As for specific advice, for now, I'd just recommend reading and thinking.

HASTY judgements lead to mistakes that can be avoided.

As to glorifying God, God knows the difference between

doing your best when better can be done,

and

deliberately doing wrong things with a disguise of rightness.

So,

don't sweat anything you've done so far.

Just consider God's love, mercy and compassion from here on.

As someone said once, 'In the end, only kindness matters.'

That's not everything, but it matters a LOT more than the correct

usage of any Greek word I've ever studied.

Learn more, and carefully decide what to do later.

Correct!

Neil Diamond song (did he ever perform it or just write it?)

performed (covered?) by the Monkees,

and again by Smash Mouth for Shrek's soundtrack.

They did 2 versions of the video- one with the Monkees style with a

campy chase scene,

the other with characters from Shrek in it.

Hm.

This new one, I think we may have done this one in the last

few months.

I make the distinction that twi believers (we used to be one) believed that twi was the best, most accurate, most rightly - divided ministry out there. There is no question in my mind that I, and I think most of us, thought that. But that is different than being the ONLY group with the truth. ONLY means the ONLY SOURCE, which obviously, we were not.

The TWI answer, ALWAYS and still to this day,

is that different groups have SOME of the truth, but fail in OTHERS.

They have a little truth-but IF ONLY they didn't have that error that invalidated their teachings!

No trinitarian has a brain in their skull!

Non-trinitarians are few and are idolators of different types.

So, twi spin is STILL "nobody else has ENOUGH of the truth to effectively have "Truth."

As long as twi still teaches that they are the only true household of God, they continue the lie that they are the only ones with the truth. I have many friends who will not leave twi even though they are miserable because they think twi is only place with the truth.

You have eyewitnesses, but some of us don't count eyewitness testimony....

Fine, I'll put Chas out of her misery.

This is "NO MYTH" by Michael Penn.

You know his brother, Sean Penn.

I really liked this song when it came out, too.

I've got the cassingle somewhere.

And considered putting it up on this thread. :)

==========

Here's a different song.

"When I needed sunshine, I got rain"

Based on what I saw before his death and what some of his family memebrs told me, VPW DID confront. The "word on the street" was that VPW was treated like a crazy old man.

Knowing what I know about VPW, he was either

a. trying to help the culture of corruption that he perfected stay alive and undetected. (Basicly Craig wasn't slick enough to pull it off like Vic could and Vic was trying to help him keep it going)

or

b. having feelings of guilt and treid to make a difference or "right the ship" thru his influence and "wisdom". (This would never have worked as Loy and co. knew dam well the ship was built on sand and enjoyed the perks of being "Elvis")

or

c. was a crazy old man. (I submit he was a crazy young man too)

Regardless, he did confront people and ran to CG for selfish AND pratcical reasons. He knew Geer was loyal and he knew Craig was out of control.

As crooked as I know Vic was, even he thought Loy's being a dancer was stupid on all levels. It took away from his job, it made him look silly and he sucked as a dancer. Picture Bill Gates or Billy Graham spending all of their time being a dancer. Makes zero sense.

I think all 3 options were at least partially true, all at the same time.

Remember, when he was dying, he wondered aloud what he had done that his believing

wasn't saving his life. I think he had convinced himself it should have AND that he'd

never sinned.