Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Growing pains


Twinky
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Twinky said:

And despite your new-found empathy, you still don't bat an eyelid.  You simply don't seem to care at all about the women who were abused by your hero VPW but merely appear to accept that abuse as a "fact of life" in some way.  Does it not anger you? 

Would it anger you if your wife, your daughter, your granddaughter, your niece or female cousin, or colleague, or other females of your close acquaintance, were treated like this?  By a supposed church minister?  How would you feel if these females had been abused by the local RC "father," perhaps the minister who was in charge of your local RC church?  Would you think the RC minister had some sort of "right" to sexually abuse women in his congregation?

As an aside, you at last appear to be accepting TWI as being a "power based human organization" - well, it certainly wasn't a Godly organization.

He still hasn't bloody well answered this.  Fudged something, yes, but answered? NO.  And he never will substantively answer.

But maybe it would be different if the hypothetical women were molested, or raped, by an actual king?  Rather than by an alleged minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Twinky said:

So let's hear it from you, in your own words.  Sexual abuse of women is wrong.  Sexual abuse of women by purported ministers is wrong.  Is abusive.  Choose your own words, don't have to be many.  You say it.  You SAY it, Mike.

Hasn't answered this, either.

He just said, I'd "got his heart wrong." Blah blah blah.  Poor little Mike.

Edited by Twinky
Sarcasm required
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Mike said:

 

Not so. I was trying to do that, up to about ten days ago. Then I stopped, although it may have leaked out a tiny bit.

 

You stopped writing about it, but you haven't stopped believing it. The despicable human being who's been your hero for decades continues to cloud your judgement. Time after time you've been asked direct questions only to give vague responses. You're a coward Mike. Cowards are at the mercy of their fear. Your fear is that you've been wrong about veepee your entire adult life. You can't admit you're wrong. 

I accepted your apology several days ago. Now I'm apologizing for having done so. People have bent over backwards here to help you see the error of your ways. You've rejected them all. How can they all be wrong and you're the only one that's right? Ever ask yourself that question? Probably not. 

And I know you'll cherry pick your resonse to me (if you do at all). And that's ok. I get it. Cause you're a coward. :wave:

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JayDee said:

You stopped writing about it, but you haven't stopped believing it. Bingo!  I've stopped hard hitting style, but OF COURSE I haven't stopped believing it. Notice I say "it" and not 'him."  The despicable human being .(the Pure Evil model on display) who's been your hero for decades Up and down like a roller coaster has my opinion of him.   continues to cloud your judgement. .the Pure Evil model clouds judgment. Hate clouds. Time after time you've been asked direct questions only to give vague responses. .You mean responses that defy the Pure Evil model  You're a coward Mike. Cowards are at the mercy of their fear.  .I show up here, don't I?  I face difficult things here.  Your fear is that you've been wrong about veepee your entire adult life. roller coaster You can't admit you're wrong. It's the ideas not the man I've been into. Most here love the same ideas when they appeared in the works of other writers. The ideas are not wrong. I was on a minor roller coaster with the ideas until they settled in 1998 on WRITTEN pfal, well after the man's death. I've been wrong a lot, especially before 1998.

I accepted your apology several days ago. Now I'm apologizing for having done so. People have bent over backwards here to help you see the error of your ways. .Bent over backwards to get me to change my core beliefs. An to replace them with what? The Pure Evil model and hate mongering? No thanks.  You've rejected them all. How can they all be wrong and you're the only one that's right? .I'm not steeped in hate.  Ever ask yourself that question? Probably not. 

And I know you'll cherry pick your resonse to me (if you do at all). . If you ever have a small army of posters against you, I want you  to give me lessons in how to catch every question, and have time to field every question's, and go down every leading questions obvious waste of time diversionary path. And that's ok. I get it. Cause you're a coward. :wave:  .Feel better?

edited for unnecessary volatility, especially with red fonts.

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone thought through how stupid it would be if I dropped PFAL because of the posts here?

The collaterals have worked fine for me all my life. How dumb for me to drop them and then ask for guidance as to what do I replace them with?  Think it through. Pretend I repented of PFAL. What would you tell me next? 

What positives do you all have cooking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mike said:

I always saw that "right" as being a practical right, and never a legal right.  I've often seen the practical rule over the legal, and in modern times. Some sports caster may have a legal right to speak his opinion, but as soon as he steps on  the toes of racism or homosexuality he's severely sanctioned. This serves as a precedent for other sports casters to fear losing their jobs and their PRACTICAL rights are curtailed. It has nothing to do with legal and moral; it's what's actually practiced regularly.

I see the entire David incident as told in PFAL as instructive on how the human things back in Biblical cultures was much the same human things today.

1) So, you're saying that all the women were not "legally" the technical property of the king, but they were "practically" the  technical property of the king?   All of this contorting to keep from admitting vpw was wrong.

2) Any sportscaster is the employee of his organization, and speaks for them in the broadcast. Thus, he's limited to what they'd want him to say and not say.  (Step outside those bounds and there's trouble.) So, his "right to free speech" is limited by his legal limitations as defined by his contract, the laws governing broadcast, and so on.  He can be sanctioned by his employers, the FCC, and so on, depending on whose rules he broke and how far he broke them.  Seriously, all broadcasters of different types know this, and we know this. Why is this news to you? (Because it's part of the system that's used to prop up errors and pretend they're not errors.)

3) The David "incident" (the adultery, murder, coverup and taking of another man's wife)  does show people were evil then just as now, but that's not the only lesson to come away with, especially when someone's claiming it's all about how "I'm sorry" made it all better and there weren't long-term consequences. Whitewashing responsibility for sin-and downgrading it from sin- are all part of a system to allow someone to get away with things and get a slap on the wrist if caught- or claim it was all right and get no penalty whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

Has anyone thought through how stupid it would be if I dropped PFAL because of the posts here?

The collaterals have worked fine for me all my life. How dumb for me to drop them and then ask for guidance as to what do I replace them with?  Think it through. Pretend I repented of PFAL. What would you tell me next? 

What positives do you all have cooking?

I see the dilemma. Nobody who invests so much time and energy into developing a belief system is going to give it up willy nilly. That's why sociologists have recognized that it takes a significant emotional event for adult humans to change their values/beliefs.

What you have, Mike, as you yourself described, is a system of belief based solely on intellectual pursuit and near academic rigor. Until you realize that's not the genuine basis for that system, you'll trudge along happily alone in that belief... perhaps.

I've noted that you have indicated your reason for participating at GSC is nostalgia-based and that you long for fellowship with likeminded believers. (If that is not a correct understanding of what you've posted, please clarify) But you've also said that you KNOW (not "knew") plenty of pro-pflap believers. Is that really the case?

Lest you think I'm trying to trap you, that's not the case. I'm just interested in you clarifying your situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

Now, if you’d be as detailed in your response to Twinky and others who’ve confronted you with legitimate questions...

Cherrypicker

And yes, I have confronted “real bad guys in person”. That’s why I don’t have any problem whatsoever calling you out. 

Keep typing in red

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, WordWolf said:

It was interesting to see what vpw said about David, Nathan and Bathsheba.  vpw said that what David did to URIAH was wrong. He said that David's actions concerning adultery, forced sex with Bathsheba (he "TOOK HER" as the Bible says) (she had no literal ability to refuse him so any "consent" would be considered INVALID in any fair court-yet there was no mention of her consenting in any verse), and the murder or Uriah to cover his tracks was "OFF THE BALL."  In the Bible, the same was "DOING EVIL."    What vpw said David did to Bathsheba was "FOOLING AROUND".   The Bible said David "TOOK HER". vpw said he "FOOLED AROUND"- and he used the Nathan-David-Bathsheba incident as a specific example of "RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD."

 

vpw (Orange Book chapter 6:

"There are many examples of correction in the

Bible. Take David, for instance. David was off the

ball. He found beautiful Bathsheba and then had her

husband shot while in the front lines of battle so that

he, David, could have Bathsheba as his wife. A few

people knew about the sequence of events leading to

David’s marriage, but nobody had a right to say any-

thing because

David was king and every woman in the

kingdom was technically the property of the king or

belonged to the king."

==============================
Mike may creatively reinterpret what vpw meant, but vpw was rather clear that "TECHNICALLY" didn't mean this was "de facto" and not "de jure" (illegal but he was able to do so because nobody had the power to stop him from breaking the law),  but that this was a LEGAL RIGHT of David's -  "NOBODY HAD A RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING".  If David broke the law, then people had a LEGAL RIGHT to say so (to say nothing of the obligation to uphold the law.)    vpw considered the CITIZENS of Israel to be the SLAVES, the CHATTEL of the King- "every woman in the kingdom was technically the property of the king or belonged to the klng."   In case "belonged to the king" was unclear, he doubled down and said they were "PROPERTY".  

Now, someone can come along later and say that the clear words here- "belonged to" "property"  "nobody had a right" -  mean something completely different than what they say. Doesn't mean they're correct or that reality changes to match their wishes that the book had said something else.

So, Mike says the women were "practically" the technical property of the ,king rather than "legally" the technical property of the king. Seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mike said:

Has anyone thought through how stupid it would be if I dropped PFAL because of the posts here?

The collaterals have worked fine for me all my life. How dumb for me to drop them and then ask for guidance as to what do I replace them with?  Think it through. Pretend I repented of PFAL. What would you tell me next? 

What positives do you all have cooking?

Phrasing it as a FALSE DILEMMA is LAZY THINKING and doesn't absolve you of responsibility to think your own thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rocky said:

I see the dilemma. Nobody who invests so much time and energy into developing a belief system is going to give it up willy nilly. That's why sociologists have recognized that it takes a significant emotional event for adult humans to change their values/beliefs.

What you have, Mike, as you yourself described, is a system of belief based solely on intellectual pursuit and near academic rigor. Until you realize that's not the genuine basis for that system, you'll trudge along happily alone in that belief... perhaps.

I've noted that you have indicated your reason for participating at GSC is nostalgia-based and that you long for fellowship with likeminded believers. (If that is not a correct understanding of what you've posted, please clarify) But you've also said that you KNOW (not "knew") plenty of pro-pflap believers. Is that really the case?

Lest you think I'm trying to trap you, that's not the case. I'm just interested in you clarifying your situation.

Thanks, Rocky. I feel a good conversation being offered here. I need time to re-read and ponder responses.  That time is not now and maybe not tonight. It's the weekend.

I'm kind a looking for calming conversation that can wind down my posting to tiny trickles. I'm still trying to turn the faucet off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JayDee said:

Now, if you’d be as detailed in your response to Twinky and others who’ve confronted you with legitimate questions...

I don't always have time. And I don't like this style or color, but both seem to be necessarily for HIGHLY detailed responses. 

And yes, I have confronted “real bad guys in person”. That’s why I don’t have any problem whatsoever calling you out. .Thank you for your graciousness. It occurred to me you and/or may be a veteran with combat experience, or something like that, and in that case my language would be inappropriately bleeding across some boundaries.  Stating a contra-positive: Brave people don't get their dandruff up over being falsely called a coward.

Keep typing in red

.I prefer to minimize it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Twinky said:

He still hasn't bloody well answered this.  Fudged something, yes, but answered? NO.  And he never will substantively answer.

 

Here So_crates. Just for you.

 

And despite your new-found empathy, you still don't bat an eyelid. This I handled several times. I do very much feel for people who were hurt.  You simply don't seem .you aint loolin' right. to care at all about the women.the women I care about. The second and third hand stories I keep an arms length from. I am reading penworks book.  who were abused by your hero Objection. It's the ideal I focus on , not the man. VPW but merely appear to accept that abuse as a "fact of life" .VERY reluctantly after a lifetime of observing it everywhere from my 6th Grade class to a hundred power names on the MeToo lists in some way.  Does it not anger you? .Angers me now, angered me then, and MUCH more than you can guess, and MUCH more than I care to detail in public.

Would it anger you if your wife, your daughter, your granddaughter, your niece or female cousin, or colleague, or other females of your close acquaintance, were treated like this?  .YES. By a supposed church minister?  How would you feel if these females had been abused by the local RC "father," perhaps the minister who was in charge of your local RC church? .Some were, more boys though.  Would you think the RC minister had some sort of "right" to sexually abuse women in his congregation?.No. If you have to ask me that you have not paid ANY attention to my heart, Twinky. I think you are asking for show, for the courtroom thrill of nailing a bad guy on the witness chair. 

As an aside, you at last appear to be accepting TWI as being a "power based human organization" - well, it certainly wasn't a Godly organization.  .Depends on where you look. Look in the collaterals, like I did mostly, and it's a different world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mike said:

Brave people don't get their dandruff up over being falsely called a coward.

I don’t call it “Brave” defending an unconvicted serial rapist. 

And yes, I am a veteran. But that’s not what helps me recognize you as a coward. Your words in defense of veepee, and continuing to dodge answering direct questions do that pretty well. Why are you so afraid to admit you’re wrong? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, WordWolf said:

Phrasing it as a FALSE DILEMMA is LAZY THINKING and doesn't absolve you of responsibility to think your own thoughts.

You could have looked at with a heart, like Rocky did.

Second, you misunderstood my reason. It wasn't trying to advance my argument. It was heart. It's a difficult concept to Google well.

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JayDee said:

I don’t call it “Brave” defending an unconvicted serial rapist. 

And yes, I am a veteran. But that’s not what helps me recognize you as a coward. Your words in defense of veepee, and continuing to dodge answering direct questions do that pretty well. Why are you so afraid to admit you’re wrong? 

I thought I was more defending myself. When VPW was wrong he was wrong, and I don't mind saying so. I do mind defending him, though.  I am totally skeptical of the Pure Evil model here. 

I like looking closely at the ideas in print in the collaterals.  I don't think that much about him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Mike said:

As an aside, you at last appear to be accepting TWI as being a "power based human organization" - well, it certainly wasn't a Godly organization.  .Depends on where you look. Look in the collaterals, like I did mostly, and it's a different world.

No, you claim its a different world.

As has been proven here several times, PLAF was a series of pre-emptive strikes, rationalizations for unacceptable behavior, and excuses for failure. More than anything else PLAF was the ideology The Way offered as a reason for committing their crapola. 

Once again:

Solzhenitsyn said in The Gulag Archipelago:

Ideology – that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and other’s eyes, so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors. That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their wills: by invoking Christianity; the conquerors of foreign lands, by extolling the grandeur of their Motherland; the colonizers, by civilization; the Nazis by race; and the Jacobins (early and late), by equality, brotherhood, and the happiness of future generations.

And TWI used Weirwille Over the World (WOW). The vehicle for this was PLAF.

Edited by So_crates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

I like looking closely at the ideas in print in the collaterals.  I don't think that much about him

I wonder how you can separate the man from his faulty logic and his deliberate mishandling of scripture? Let alone leaving Jesus Christ out of the picture as “absent”. Come on man!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike said:

I thought I was more defending myself. When VPW was wrong he was wrong, and I don't mind saying so.

Yah, we've seen how you admit when he was wrong he was wrong. Just look at the last couple of pages involving his forcing himself on women.I've gotten straighter answers from a Silly Straw.

Where's all that honesty now?

Quote

I do mind defending him, though.  I am totally skeptical of the Pure Evil model here. 

You mean the Pure Evil model that comes more from YOU than from us? You know, when all you got is a hammer everything looks like a nail. So I suppose when all you got is excuses, everything looks like people are claiming Pure Evil.

Quote

I like looking closely at the ideas in print in the collaterals.  I don't think that much about him.

I would guess all you think about is Saint Vic. In the past three threads, when it comes to Saint Vic you spin like a wet load of laundry, yet PLAF and bible quotes are fewer than fritters at a fat farm.

Seems to me if you were half the PLAF kahuna you claim to be collateral and bible quotes would dapple your posts like shade on a boulevard.

Edited by So_crates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike:

"Has anyone thought through how stupid it would be if I dropped PFAL because of the posts here?

The collaterals have worked fine for me all my life. How dumb for me to drop them and then ask for guidance as to what do I replace them with?  Think it through. Pretend I repented of PFAL. What would you tell me next? 

What positives do you all have cooking?"

 

WordWolf:

Phrasing it as a FALSE DILEMMA is LAZY THINKING and doesn't absolve you of responsibility to think your own thoughts.

 

Mike:

"You could have looked at with a heart, like Rocky did.

Second, you misunderstood my reason. It wasn't trying to advance my argument. It was heart. It's a difficult concept to Google well."

 

WordWolf continues:

I looked at it with a heart and a brain, as did Rocky.  He chose not to call you on the FALSE DILEMMA, I chose to. Neither was incorrect. If you don't want to get called on posting FALSE DILEMMAS, don't post them.

I only pointed out the FALSE DILEMMA accomplishes nothing.  It seems you're not even aware of doing it. Do you need me to lay it out for you, enable the Help Files?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JayDee said:

I wonder how you can separate the man from his faulty logic and his deliberate mishandling of scripture? Let alone leaving Jesus Christ out of the picture as “absent”. Come on man!

We could discuss the absent Christ, but in Doctrinal. I suppose there's a thread on it somewhere. How many strong arguments have you considered that support "absent" ?   The only viable alternative to absent is "pretend parousia" in my mind.

I see benefits in an absent Christ. When did he leave and have a cloud hide him from sight.  One minute on that Ascension day he is sent. Next minute he is ab-sent, or hidden from sight. What's so hard with that?

Another straining of gnats in my book.

***

It's easy to separate the ideas in the books from the man. The plagiarism fans think those ideas are not his to begin with. I like the ideas. I like how they fit together. I don't get fooled into abusing women at all from the collaterals. From a few Corps leaders I COULD have picked up that attitude, but I resisted each time.

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I had written: .Depends on where you look. Look in the collaterals, like I did mostly, and it's a different world.

5 hours ago, So_crates said:

No, you claim its a different world.

I think I can claim with some authority that my world is VERY different from most here. I've been free of TWI interference for a full 30 years now. I've had 20 years of good times in the collaterals and almost nothing else.  I will tell you, YES, my world is pretty darn positive and free of the baloney people wrestle with here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, So_crates said:

I would guess all you think about is Saint Vic. In the past three threads, when it comes to Saint Vic you spin like a wet load of laundry, yet PLAF and bible quotes are fewer than fritters at a fat farm.

Seems to me if you were half the PLAF kahuna you claim to be collateral and bible quotes would dapple your posts like shade on a boulevard.

Whoa!  Cafe Noir here.

No, you guesses wrong.  I think about him when I'm here, but I prefer the ideas.  I was talking about the absent Christ benefits on another thread. Ever think Christ being absent or not personally present would have benefits attached? Think on it a little, and get back to me if you can't think of any benefits.  I like these ideas much more than talking of recent dreary history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WordWolf said:

Mike:

"Has anyone thought through how stupid it would be if I dropped PFAL because of the posts here?

The collaterals have worked fine for me all my life. How dumb for me to drop them and then ask for guidance as to what do I replace them with?  Think it through. Pretend I repented of PFAL. What would you tell me next? 

What positives do you all have cooking?"

 

WordWolf:

Phrasing it as a FALSE DILEMMA is LAZY THINKING and doesn't absolve you of responsibility to think your own thoughts.

 

Mike:

"You could have looked at with a heart, like Rocky did.

Second, you misunderstood my reason. It wasn't trying to advance my argument. It was heart. It's a difficult concept to Google well."

 

WordWolf continues:

I looked at it with a heart and a brain, as did Rocky.  He chose not to call you on the FALSE DILEMMA, I chose to. Neither was incorrect. If you don't want to get called on posting FALSE DILEMMAS, don't post them.

I only pointed out the FALSE DILEMMA accomplishes nothing.  It seems you're not even aware of doing it. Do you need me to lay it out for you, enable the Help Files?

It wasn't a part of an argument for me to mention that.

I just wondered how many posters here could actually think I'd have such a cartoon mentality as to post here 5000 times 10 years ago, to come back here still on fire with positive reports on how I spent my summer vacation for 10 years, only to drop my working, functioning, delightful core belief system from reading a hundred posts, and then adopting the Pure Evil model, to then shut down my computer and live with my new CreaseGod. At least Rocky got it, that that was never going to happen. Geeeesh! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rocky said:

I see the dilemma. Nobody who invests so much time and energy into developing a belief system is going to give it up willy nilly. That's why sociologists have recognized that it takes a significant emotional event for adult humans to change their values/beliefs.

What you have, Mike, as you yourself described, is a system of belief based solely on intellectual pursuit and near academic rigor. Until you realize that's not the genuine basis for that system, you'll trudge along happily alone in that belief... perhaps.

I've noted that you have indicated your reason for participating at GSC is nostalgia-based and that you long for fellowship with likeminded believers. (If that is not a correct understanding of what you've posted, please clarify) But you've also said that you KNOW (not "knew") plenty of pro-pflap believers. Is that really the case?

Lest you think I'm trying to trap you, that's not the case. I'm just interested in you clarifying your situation.

Rocky, just putting this here, easier to find. I gotta go dancing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...