Mike

1 hour ago, Nathan_Jr said:

A talking snake is fantasy. 

Yes, it would be.

Bishop Pillai taught that the word for snake or serpent should be translated or thought of as "enchanter."    Some snakes are amazing enchanters; just look at National Geographic.   Hence, the downward spiral of Renaissance Art depicting a snake and an apple, corrupting people's mental imagery for centuries.

Lucifer was created to be astoundingly beautiful; he charmed one third of God's angels. Our mind picture of Genesis should have in it an enchanting beauty deceiving Eve, not a slithering snake. 

Just now, Nathan_Jr said:

Parables aren’t fantasy. They are metaphor.

Talking dead people is fantasy.

17 minutes ago, waysider said:

 "Not one of them got tricked into thinking that dead people can really talk. 

They loved the teaching of principles in a fantasy setting."

 

And you know this because........how?

Jesus would not speak a parable that would mislead his audience.

The Gospels document that the people loved Jesus' parables.  Meditate a little on that.

12 hours ago, Exidor said:

I forget how this story is described in ATDAN book by VPW. Some say that it was just a story Jesus used to make a moral point but they imply that the description of Sheol was not literal.

It took me a long time to understand the way ADAN handles this story of Lazarus in Abraham's bosom.

I now see it as a cultural thing.

The people loved parables, and Jesus reached them often that way.

Imagine yourself in a movie theater, about to see a drama or something.  The lights go out, and a cartoon comes on.  What happens?  The people love it and laugh and applaud as the Merry Melodies play. Then everyone eats up the talking animals like Bugs Bunny cracking jokes, and that Wiley Coyote gets smashed by a giant heavy rock, only to get up and continue the chase.

No one gets the idea from the cartoon that animals can really talk.

When Jesus ran the Parables Reel at his shows, the people loved it!  Not one of them got tricked into thinking that dead people can really talk. 

They just did not have the centuries of twisted training to think that the dead are alive now.  They loved the teaching of principles in a fantasy setting.

5 hours ago, Twinky said:

You appear to be asking two different questions.  The first is how people deal with the person so diagnosed.  The second, if I understand you correctly, is how to talk to the families.  Two different things, but not necessarily two different answers.

The answer, really, is LOVINGLY.  Kindly, gently, respecting where individuals "are" presently.  If your friend is in a schizo phase, deal kindly.  If the family are anxious, concerned, tearing their hair out, deal kindly.  If you can't say anything, just be present, available, and quietly helpful.  And silent.

Hi Twinky.   I see the two questions you mentioned as pretty merged, and both angles are in my mind.

I agree, silence with alert love is my best strategy so far.

6 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

STOP!
No one ever asserted such a claim. No one. Ever.

My statement there was a preventive measure, here. 

Many people are prone to make that mistake that I warned against.
I have seen people misread that way, the statistics I mentioned.
Not here, though.

5 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

No one ever suspected cigarette smoking to be a cause of schizophrenia.

True.

Just the opposite, it mitigates it.

AND more importantly: heavy smoking is not EVIDENCE of schizophrenia.

Thanks again.  You and waysider are the first people I have discussed this with who had first hand knowledge.   I've only been reading about this a little.

1 hour ago, waysider said:

Am I the only one, or did anyone else get the impression Mike's friend had already been diagnosed? I feel now like the opening post was a bit misleading. Was that done intentionally for some reason?

Here is where you suspicions took you down the wrong road.

I wrote:
"What I do mean is I am seeking information on how friends and family deal with a loved one who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia by a professional."

The professional diagnosis mentioned in that sentence refers to anyone HERE who had friends or family with the disease, and not to my friend having a professional diagnosis.

49 minutes ago, waysider said:

Am I the only one, or did anyone else get the impression Mike's friend had already been diagnosed? I feel now like the opening post was a bit misleading. Was that done intentionally for some reason?

I went back and re-read my opening post.  If you do the same you will see my emphasis is on how do I deal with the family IF this is what I suspect it is. 

I also noticed that I did not include one of my biggest reason's for suspecting his condition is schizophrenia, because it is a little bit involved.  It's the nicotine connection that I am talking about.  My friend was a heavy life long smoker.  Have any of you heard in the last 10 years the news about nicotine and this disease?  For decades health care workers has suspected this connection.

What they noticed was that in a KNOWN population of professionally diagnosed schizophrenia patients (like in a mental hospital) the percent who are heavy smokers is significantly higher than percent heavy smokers in the general population.

STOP!

This does NOT mean that if a person is a heavy smoker they are likely to have schizophrenia.
This does NOT mean that if a person is a heavy smoker they are likely to have schizophrenia.

Please digest that. The percent differences are not that great to make such a leap in statistics.

This was just a hunch that mental health workers had and it was labeled anecdotal for decades.  THEN came the Chemists in Neuroscience and ten years ago they finally determined that nicotine is nearly chemically equivalent to the best schizophrenia meds.  It acts similarly on the same sites in the brain.  You can now Google this connection, as the chemistry has been super verified since I first heard it 10 years ago.  Lots of schizophrenia victims find that nicotine helps them think better, and they became life long heavy smokers for it.  It's the old self medicating thing.

After I heard all this my suspicions increased that he had problems and I watched very closely. A few years later his doctor demanded that he cut his smoking in half.  He got a little kookier in my unprofessional opinion.  Then another couple years and he got some other disease and his doctor said it was cold turkey time, so he totally quit.  Within 3 months he was pretty radically different.   My observations ended soon after that.  He is older than me and I expect to be trying my best to help his family at some point after he passes away.

So that is why I took the time to look into this disease some, and ask here how the family of such victims handle it.

LoL   You folks are WAY too suspicious. 

I hope for your own sakes that you aren't like that in real life.

18 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Sounds like you are the one diagnosing your friend on your own hunch. 
Find out for yourself about the MMPI-2 test. It’s about as objective as it gets for personality disorders and mental illness. 
Chemical tests have their own limits. False positives suck. 

Yes, you got that right.  I'm not a professional so my hunch is much hunchier that a professional's.  I'm just thinking that IF my amateur hunch plays out as right in the coming years, I want to be prepared to help the family, and not accidentally antagonize them.  Maybe they got a professional involved by now.  I am sort of cut off from most news about all this now, though, since his other medical conditions have worsened.

I will look into the MMPI-2 test, so thanks for that.   I had heard of that some.

21 hours ago, Stayed Too Long said:

Doctors rely on much more than a hunch when diagnosing schizophrenia. Although there is no test that can be performed in a laboratory to determine its existence, there are well defined symptoms that define the disease, as set forth in this article.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-is-schizophrenia-diagnosed

Thank you. That is very helpful.

On 4/4/2023 at 9:54 AM, Nathan_Jr said:

I've known a few schizophrenics, but I wouldn't call any of them friends. None were scary. None were dangerous. All were rather innocent, childlike. Delusional. Even silly, if you don't know what's going on. The ones I've known were very sweet.

Did the odd behavior come and go?   For my friend many months could pass and I'd see no signs, then then one or two would pop up for a day or two, and then everything would be fine for another long time.

On 4/4/2023 at 9:54 AM, Nathan_Jr said:

Schizophrenia isn't diagnosed on a hunch.

What you did not understand in my hunch statement is that unlike many other medical conditions, there is no objective chemical test for schizophrenia.  Or at least, none at the time of the data I found. 

It should be diagnosed by a professional observing body language, and spoken responses, history of events, family history, etc.   But if a second opinion is sought, a contradictory diagnosis might be given.  This doesn't usually happen if there were a chemical test to aid the diagnosis.  That is why the word "hunch" was very appropriate, in comparison to a chemical test.

By "first-hand experience"  I don't mean "what you know" if you are afflicted with schizophrenia yourself.  Although, that could be interesting in itself.

What I do mean is I am seeking information on how friends and family deal with a loved one who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia by a professional.

A dear old friend of mine has been going through multiple medical issues that are pretty extreme. For almost ten years I have thought that schizophrenia was possibly one of them.  Though I've spent a lot of time studying the brain, schizophrenia was never included, so I am very ignorant here.  In the meantime I have learned very little in how to deal with my friend and his family. 

I have learned a full one percent of the population is afflicted with this disease.  I also learned that there is very little known about schizophrenia, and that there is no chemical test for it; only the hunch of a psychiatrist can be obtained as a diagnosis.

But the shame of this disease is great in our culture.  Very little seems to be known about it in common culture. Strangely, I don't know how schizophrenia was handled in the ministry.  Mental illness in general seemed to rarely come up. Devil spirits came up often, that's for sure.   I do remember rare, short AC teachings on a some of this delicate spirit/chemical topic, but it was never assimilated into the culture of the ministry, as best as I can remember.

I do know that schizophrenia is NOT the Hollywood story of multiple personalities, but I do wonder if there is a trace of that kind of thing in the disease. In my ten years of observing occasional short duration fits of strange behavior and words from my old friend, I can see how some might interpret that as separate personalities.  Most of the time he was perfectly lucid and loving, and sharp with the Word. 

I don't think his family can handle me asking them about this.   I already know for sure that they want strict privacy for even his medical conditions, and that would be even more for his mental condition.  I guess I am wondering how families deal with schizophrenia, so that after he falls asleep, I can most effectively comfort them.

Just now, waysider said:

There's a bitterness torch? Why hasn't someone told me? 

It's because you have not asked them.

Have you ever asked older grads, not connected with GreaseSpot, what they think of this place?   I mean have you asked MANY grads, like an informal poll?   

Grads that are relatively happy with what they got from PFAL don't like coming here, because of all the bitterness they encounter here against what went wrong at TWI.  Then, if they speak up about the positives, they are shot down with barrages of bitterness.  Either that, or they read threads and see others shot down with barrages of bitterness. 

This is not a happy place.  Constant focus on sin and treachery is the rule. It is a bitter place to most grads, and if you ask them you will find out I am right.

23 minutes ago, So_crates said:

1. What evidence do I have that Saint Vic was a MOG?

2. What evidence do I have Saint Vic was doing God's will?

And don't point to the collaterals. That's a circular argument.

I point to the collaterals, because they round off my argument.

I point to what I got from the collaterals in the 1970s, and how they served me a clear window into the Bible.  I still use that window to see clearly.

I asked you and others what window you use to see clearly, and you dodged the challenge.   You probably don't think through the positive stuff NEARLY as much as you think through the negative stuff.

Let's turn my challenge to you folks around a little bit.

What do you do for "new" people you minister to?   

What standard do you conform to in ministering to them?

Do you point to your own accumulated wisdom for them to learn from?  Or do you point to another living teacher (or authof) as having a much larger cargo for your "new" people than you can deliver?  

If it's the Bible or Jesus you point them to, do you just send "new" people to a Gideon Motel?  Or do you send them to some teacher or "window" to the Bible and Jesus that will assist them in getting started?

Now switch gears from new people to the refugees of TWI.  Is there any one package of teaching you can send them to?  Or do you merely help strip them of their trusted past teaching, and send them off into the Ocean of Speculation and Doubt to become as empty and confused as the rest of the world?

Do you really offer the "comfort of unknowing" to those who thought they "really knew" from VPW in years past?  Or do you have a hard knowledge swap for them, saying "Here, that VPW stuff was bad, but this is good. Take this in place of VPW."

You all probably don't realize how vapid an alternative you offer to TWI-4 people.  It is laughable.... until I remember you are my damaged family, too.  I really don't think there is a large crop of culty victims there for you to minister to in the future. They really have cooled off the really dumb diabolical stuff, and are at least communicating about the remaining dumb  (and less diabolical)  stuff.

There may still be bitter confused old grads from early TWIs who can still hook up here and be bitter with you all, but here is the harsh truth about that: they are all dying off now. Plus, bad news travels fast, and everyone has heard of GreaseSpot by now.

I have challenged you all before as to who is going to take up the bitterness torch after you all die off yourselves...  but heard only crickets.

23 minutes ago, waysider said:

Strawman.

My personal beliefs are not the issue here.

Are you afraid to open up for all to see how little you have going on?

I think your personal believes ARE the issue here.  You are afraid to show your empty hand.

24 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

I follow Jesus Christ. He's the way to God...now ain't that simple? No false prophets needed.

And exactly how do you do that? 
Does he come and instruct you?
Did he leave you with a book?

Or more likely, do you wing it and assume anything you like in your head is what Jesus likes too?

16 hours ago, waysider said:

Exactly. As long as we master the collaterals, everything will be fine.

Which brings up a good point.

We all gotta master SOMETHING.

There has got to be something that each and every one of us look up to with great respect, and hope to line our actions and thoughts up against.

The question is WHAT?

What is your "rule for faith and practice" that guides your thoughts?

Do you have one rule for faith and practice, or do you flit around from one set of rules to another, looking for what is a convenient rule for the present?

If you have settled onto just one rule to guide your thoughts, what is it?  Is it in writing?

Fools will settle only on their own light to guide them.

*/*/*

On a slightly different angle, is there any one person in the world (besides yourself) that you trust?   We all know you don't trust VPW.

But who DO you trust?  Who is doing a good job at guiding God's people today?  Do you see yourself in that role?

49 minutes ago, Rocky said:

I emphatically recommend to you to read Jacob Ward's book (I linked in my earlier comment) The Loop.

 

Thanks for the tip.   I noticed that he deals a lot with A.I. and I am very interested in how the kind of mundane free will that I am proposing could work in A.I. someday.

I bookmarked his book for future reference.

1 hour ago, Rocky said:

Might Mike have been onto something when he started telling us we may not really have free will?

On page 16 of The Loop: How Technology is Creating a World Without Choices and How to Fight Back, author Jacob Ward writes, "Our actions feel voluntary, and therefore must be under the direct control of our will, right?" (emphasis in the original)

"Well, no. Goodale and Milner [a team of neuroscientists] found, in carefully crafted lab experiments,  that our perception is not under direct control of our will." (emphasis mine)

This is in a chapter titled The Reality Gap.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember reading where Mike may have made a distinction between what we perceive and how we act.

This relates to this current thread because how we perceive determines whether what we see, perceive, and recognize might cause us to define something as a miracle or not.

I don't see it a big deal that our perceptions be all that accurate.  What we get mostly from perceptions are how can we move in tight quarters without bumping our head.  Perceptions are for survival, and they work just fine for that.

The ONLY real modifications that I am proposing for free will is that we don't have AS MUCH of it as we'd like to believe, and it is not instantly available on demand.  It sometimes takes repeated efforts before a free decision is made.  Like a muscle it can get stronger or weaker with time.

So_crates:
“You're still presupposing Saint Vic was an MOG. What proof do you have of this?”

The proof is in the package that was delivered to me:  the written collaterals, mostly.

*/*/*

So_crates:
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

That is putting evidence on a slightly higher pedestal than it deserves.

][][][][][][][][][][][]

T-Bone:
“wierwille demanded to be considered a man of God in the unique class of the Apostles- but take note - wierwille had no signs of an apostle!!!!!! Proof is in the authentication by God. wierwille didn’t have $hit!”

I was impressed with how efficiently the film class got so many to genuinely S.I.T. and VPW’s policy of “no one gets missed” almost worked for us who ran the film classes. I can tell that few here ever went into the deeper details of SIT, and that’s why all the doubts over faking it. I went there plenty of times, but I did it in at a time when the local ministry was nurturing, functioning and thriving.  I got my answers to the genuineness of SIT that I see most here completely missed.

][][][][][][][][]

Chockful:

“I challenge Mike to equally employ his model of Gods ownership across all areas of the Earth planet as God owns it.”

God will assert His ownership in due time. Meanwhile, His revelations to us (including to Kenyon, to BG Leonard, to Bullinger, etc.) work this way.

“The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.”

It is a big enough challenge for me to employ this model to whatever He God-breathes in these later centuries.

][][][][][][][][][][]

Nathan_Jr:
“Don't the epistles provide criteria for a man of god? Haven't we already shown victor doesn't meet those criteria?”

The epistles give us guidance for how we should pick ministers to do jobs for us like preach and guide a flock. 

The epistles do not tell us how God picks people for super special jobs, like listen to what God said he should trust and not trust in other authors and researchers.  That super special 1942 job also entailed teaching it, distributing it and listening to God’s guidance in that as well.  He got the job done, mostly, by his retirement in 1982. 

God picked VPW for the job and it was done before most of you took the class.

6 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

It doesn't require 18 hours a day for years to copy and paste.

The bigger time soaker is reading through all the stuff that was NOT worth passing on to us. 

I completely reject your whole assessment of the work he did or did not do.  It is pure speculation, and wrong speculation.