be careful what you ask for - especially with Mike
Thats a point well taken. Literally, we are at this juncture because I asked mike to post up chapters from his book. I was expecting a scientific discussion paper. What I found was a rather poorly written disseration loaded with circular reasoning, undefined terms, claims that couldn't be sourced, and lots of contradictory information with various disciplines overlapping with no clear boundaries on how they are interelated. I used to run an editing business. I've worked on lots of discussion papers: governmental, scientific, medicinal, etc. As they say on the streets: This aint that.
Everything technological alters determinism patterns with other determinism patterns.
yes yes yes!
Now open your Magic PFAL Spell Book boys and girls...and invoke the wierwille spirit...PFAL interprets itself...wierwille interprets himself...wierwille's interpretation trumps any other interpretation...wierwille's determination alters your self-determination....uhm...more like he hijacked it.
Determinism is tied to the Laws of Physics.
These Laws actually DETERMINE what happens in the physical world.
When the spiritual world interacts with the physical world a WHOLE NEW SET of laws, spiritual laws, come into play.
This is analogous to how the law of aerodynamics (Bernoulli) can overpower the law of gravity, so airplanes can fly.
4 hours ago, OldSkool said:
Can you list these spiritual laws?
3 hours ago, OldSkool said:
Oh...what hints are you referring to?
3 hours ago, OldSkool said:
So what hints u talking about?
2 hours ago, OldSkool said:
What spiritual law are you talking about?
Is there more than one spiritual law?
2 hours ago, OldSkool said:
And you need to communicate clearly and not dance around and hint. What spiritual laws? And assuming there is more than one, what are they?
Clear, concese, rudimentary questions on something you stated. So teach me.
1 hour ago, OldSkool said:
So Determinism is a law?
You say a WHOLE NEW SET of laws, spiritual laws, come into play - what are these laws? What are some examples that show these laws in action? Then please demonsrate these laws. I really wanna know.
Which Bernoulli are you talking about...there was an entire family of Bernoullis and many of them had many things named after them...which Bernoulli? Daniel? Jacob? Johann?
Please plainly elucidate just how spiritual laws overpower physical laws? That's the analogy you gave. So if you are using analogies you surely can explain how it works in more detail...non-techinical types like me wanna know.
17 minutes ago, OldSkool said:
I understand full well what we are talking about. You introduced all of these spiritual laws, said they override physical laws, drew an analogy that didn't fit in anyone's mind except yours. But according to the above sentence it seems you are saying spiritual laws are not involved in natural man's life because there is no spirit in there..your words....
So....spiritual laws are involved in the decision making process of someone who isn't natural man? As a born again Christian I really wanna know what spiritual laws are affecting me. You need to explain how this works...since you are the one who introduced all of this into the conversation.
12 minutes ago, OldSkool said:
Well....point me to where in the Word these spiritual laws are enumerated. So far all you have done is show me from the Gospels what happens when a person has faith in God.
3 minutes ago, OldSkool said:
Sooo.....God raised Jesus Christ from the dead.
Please explain how God almighty used spiritual laws in OVERCOMING natural laws in Christ's resurrection.
This is a list of on-topic questions raised by what you introduced into the conversation. Can you or can you not answer these questions.
Well, this has de-railed into a discussion about me and not the topic.... AGAIN.
when trolls invade a topic - it becomes about them because they introduce off-topic stuff and anything else to detract from a normal discussion - the person acting like a troll then acts offended when called out about it saying we're making it about him. that's playing the victim card.
This thread has pretty much been off the tracks from the get-go...starting with Mike's goofy "thesis" ...thus the discussion has been mostly ABOUT THE WAY MIKE REDEFINES TERMS AND CONCEPTS and even tries to shoehorn in some wierwille/PFAL bull$hit / pseudoscience...folks question him on the re-definitions, point out contradictions and nonsense - and he gets offended...Mike makes it sound like it's our fault that he's such a poor communicator...oh well
1 hour ago, Mike said:
I suggest you folks take a Physics 101 course on-line.
There are lots of TOP universities offering them free now.
I got some good boilerplate when we were talking physics and airplanes and brains.
now he's using the condescending ploy
1 hour ago, Mike said:
But then you all had to bring in VPW and then shift the topic to me and my lowly defects.
Mike introduces ideas from wierwille and PFAL - but he says they're right out of the Bible - and takes offense when he gets called out about it...just ask for chapter and verse on whatever idea he posits - and it will more than likely be some passage that wierwille twisted around to support his screwy ideology
1 hour ago, Mike said:
I prefer the physics discussion.
Have any of you ever taken a Physics 101 course at the university level?
...at the High School level?
condescending - people who act like a trolls SAY they're interested in the topic
People can abuse science into a religion, by thinking that science can explain everything. It can explain a lot, but when people look to it to totally explain God as merely a human brain artifact, THEN it becomes the religion people are calling scientism.
Ah, scientism. A dogmatism. Like the dogmatism of victor’s private religion. Yeah, no, that ain’t science. But, sure, I’ll accept that scientism is a type of religion.
Like all dogmatic ideologies, there is no science involved with scientism.
when trolls invade a topic - it becomes about them because they introduce off-topic stuff and anything else to detract from a normal discussion - the person acting like a troll then acts offended when called out about it saying we're making it about him. that's playing the victim card.
4 minutes ago, T-Bone said:
Mike introduces ideas from wierwille and PFAL - but he says they're right out of the Bible - and takes offense when he gets called out about it
It's that good ole cognitive dissonance kicking in. He states things as if they are verifiable science, in this case spiritual laws, and then when questioned he has no legitimate answers and becomes agitated towards participants in the conversation, resulting to name calling, insults, etc. It's what happens when wierwille's half baked theology scambles someone's eggs. I recognize it because it happened to me to a marked degree in the 12 years I ate, drank, and slept all things way international. I had to do a real honest check up from the neck up to find my way out.
Well, this has de-railed into a discussion about me and not the topic.... AGAIN.I suggest you folks take a Physics 101 course on-line. There are lots of TOP universities offering them free now.I got some good boilerplate when we were talking physics and airplanes and brains.But then you all had to bring in VPW and then shift the topic to me and my lowly defects.I prefer the physics discussion...
Oh, I doubt that you’re really into the stated topic of this discussion – you act too much like a troll.
That just doesn’t ring true. You complain about what dullards we are compared to your brainy friends / Facebook discussion groups.
Do your professor friends and Facebook groups know about you acting like a troll on Grease Spot Cafe for 20 years?
do they know about your devotion to a cult-leader who had claimed he heard from God it was okay to plagiarize other people’s work and sexually molest women?
Are any of your professors / Facebook friends published authors? Are any of them women?
I’ll tell you why all this is relevant. Legitimate scientists, professors, published authors have intellectual standards. Plagiarism is a no-no. That relates to having integrity and a good work ethic also. And being a sexual predator as a side gig is not okay – it’s not just morally wrong – it’s against the law.
Now take wierwille who acted like he was above the law - a law unto himself...and yet YOU defend him!
I wonder what they would think of someone who defends such a creep like wierwille to the hilt?
Why do you keep coming back here to pull the same old repetitive act of trolling when people confront you about it? I don't hear of you complaining about your brainy friends / Facbook folks giving you a hard time - really - why do you keep coming back?!?!
...Geez Louise - Jesus told His disciples if people didn't want to hear about the gospel message, then just leave - shake the dust off your sandals...why do you stick around here? honestly!!! I'd like to know.
Do you act like that with your professor friends / Facebook group discussions?
Do you refer to us as “those dummies on Grease Spot who don’t understand you”?
One of Ethelbert’s appendices is called “THE Man of God.” He provides a long list of OT verses, but no names. HOWEVER, a simple mathematical equation is presented:
6 x 13
I’m not saying I have the secret decoder ring, but I bet that 6 is the number of THE The Men of God to which the music coordinator referred.
It's that good ole cognitive dissonance kicking in. He states things as if they are verifiable science, in this case spiritual laws, and then when questioned he has no legitimate answers and becomes agitated towards participants in the conversation, resulting to name calling, insults, etc. It's what happens when wierwille's half baked theology scambles someone's eggs. I recognize it because it happened to me to a marked degree in the 12 years I ate, drank, and slept all things way international. I had to do a real honest check up from the neck up to find my way out.
One of Ethelbert’s appendices is called “THE Man of God.” He provides a long list of OT verses, but no names. HOWEVER, a simple mathematical equation is presented:
6 x 13
I’m not saying I have the secret decoder ring, but I bet that 6 is the number of THE The Men of God to which the music coordinator referred.
well maybe TWI is a non-prophet organization after all
Ah, scientism. A dogmatism. Like the dogmatism of victor’s private religion. Yeah, no, that ain’t science. But, sure, I’ll accept that scientism is a type of religion.
Like all dogmatic ideologies, there is no science involved with scientism.
People can abuse science into a religion, by thinking that science can explain everything. It can explain a lot, but when people look to it to totally explain God as merely a human brain artifact, THEN it becomes the religion people are calling scientism.
Warning: the magic tricks and pseudoscience taught in PFAL should NOT be attempted at home or at Twig. Leave that to professional con artists – someone might get hurt:
OldSkool, I think you are wise beyond your guitar chords...more I thought about your post - it's just stunning to stand back and reflect on Mike's slow reveal...on other threads he's mentioned he keeps in touch with some TWI folks - including HQ people...he's talked about how some are listening to what he says...and now he let's the cat out of the Betamax player - he's taking PFAL Today...I've got to make a quick post in the PFAL Today thread to link your post and mine - just to wrap it all up and put a holy-Shonta bow on it
One of Ethelbert’s appendices is called “THE Man of God.” He provides a long list of OT verses, but no names. HOWEVER, a simple mathematical equation is presented:
6 x 13
I’m not saying I have the secret decoder ring, but I bet that 6 is the number of THE The Men of God to which the music coordinator referred.
I inclueded Ethelbert in the following thread that should add some insight on his numbers routine:
YW! To be fair, not all of Bullinger's appendices are trash. He was a briliant individual (as were his understudies Charles Welsch for example) who produced a lot of scholarly type work that add insight to scripture and he also produced some bullshonta. Wierwille stole from Bullinger and Welsch copiously.
22 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:
Whew! All that tracking and tabulation. Gosh! Sure, it’s neato, but one might risk paralysis by analysis. And after all that effort for granularity, the Gospels aren’t even written TO him, according to him.
Thank for the link!
20 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:
He probably has some good insights. He clearly has the patience and diligence for minute details, but he is not the only theologian to have ever walked the Earth. (For him, walking on Earth is only possible because it's flat.)
It's stupid stuff like flat Earth and four crucified and hyper dispensationalism that cause me not to waste my time. Though, for a minute, I was intrigued by his treatment of the genitive case in one appendix, only to be let down by his omission of objective/subjective. (Maybe he handles that elsewhere.)
Hey Nathan_Jr just a suggestion on how I deal with Bullinger...some of his detailed work - like in the appendices serve me as a good starting...almost like using a concordance or topical Bible - I try to separate the data from the belief system of the author - like with topical Bibles the editor might group certain passages mentioning "spirit" together and list them as it having to do with the manifestations of the spirit - wierwille did that a lot on many subjects.
Bullinger and his research team were very organized and hyper-focused. that can be to your advantage if you look past his ideology...it's a lot easier identifying and isolating his ideology than wierwille's - cuz there is some logic to Bullinger whereas wierwille was incompetent, illogical and more eclectic
PFAL taught me wrong on a lot of things...and I had to make up for it by getting into stuff hermeneutics and systematic theology to sort out what's what...to this day I still try to exercise good critical thinking skills with everything I read - even favorite authors/editors of Study Bibles and systematic theology, etc. I don't agree 100 % with everything. I go with what makes sense to my pea brain.
I am aware of my own confirmation bias - I believe the Bible is inspired of God but there's a human element in it. So, I part company when authors are sticklers for the inerrancy of Scripture. But the same author may be fine on basic tenets of Christianity - like the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the 2 great commandments, our sin nature, trusting God, the moral demands of Scripture, etc.
Having some intellectual standards is a good thing. I believe Bullinger's were pretty good. wierwille had none - so PFAL should not be considered the gold standard....I think ever-developing critical thinking skills is a pretty good standard - if something is valid - if it's truth - if it's a fact - it will hold up under the closest scrutiny.
The only good thing I can say about PFAL is it got me interested in systematic theology, hermeneutics, philosophy of religion...It was like having a swimming coach who didn't know how to swim himself and he wasn't even a good teacher - but the experience introduced me to swimming - and I now love swimming.
The "greatest secret in the world today" is how did Mike learn to so efficaciously push the buttons of GSC netizens to keep wasting time on vain babblings (useless/fruitless interaction) on a topic that even trained philosophers and/or scientists will likely never resolve... let alone a handful of disgruntled PFLAP grads.
Hey Nathan_Jr just a suggestion on how I deal with Bullinger...some of his detailed work - like in the appendices serve me as a good starting...almost like using a concordance or topical Bible - I try to separate the data from the belief system of the author - like with topical Bibles the editor might group certain passages mentioning "spirit" together and list them as it having to do with the manifestations of the spirit - wierwille did that a lot on many subjects.
Bullinger and his research team were very organized and hyper-focused. that can be to your advantage if you look past his ideology...it's a lot easier identifying and isolating his ideology than wierwille's - cuz there is some logic to Bullinger whereas wierwille was incompetent, illogical and more eclectic
PFAL taught me wrong on a lot of things...and I had to make up for it by getting into stuff hermeneutics and systematic theology to sort out what's what.
I agree. I admitted to some of the benefits of his work. He is a good STARTING point. A good way to get a taste. HOWEVER, I do find his ideology distracting - that's me.
As you have surely found out, another man's work is no substitute whatsoever for one's own work on matters such as these. Regurgitation is no substitute for serious inquiry.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
330
267
271
186
Popular Days
Nov 12
118
Nov 13
107
Nov 20
105
Nov 9
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 330 posts
T-Bone 267 posts
OldSkool 271 posts
Nathan_Jr 186 posts
Popular Days
Nov 12 2022
118 posts
Nov 13 2022
107 posts
Nov 20 2022
105 posts
Nov 9 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I do want to address this Mike. You constantly come at me like I have forgotten, or have been talked out of the truth of wierwille, or that I just don't understand where you are coming from. Personall
waysider
This right here. If you're unable to define and regulate your control factors and variables, your research is worthless. The best you could hope for would be an observational analysis of your collecte
Charity
I agree with So_Crates when he said "Here's a wild idea: why don't YOU become meek and I'll tell you about all the fruit in my life since I stopped making PLAF the center of my life." There have
Posted Images
OldSkool
Thats a point well taken. Literally, we are at this juncture because I asked mike to post up chapters from his book. I was expecting a scientific discussion paper. What I found was a rather poorly written disseration loaded with circular reasoning, undefined terms, claims that couldn't be sourced, and lots of contradictory information with various disciplines overlapping with no clear boundaries on how they are interelated. I used to run an editing business. I've worked on lots of discussion papers: governmental, scientific, medicinal, etc. As they say on the streets: This aint that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well, this has de-railed into a discussion about me and not the topic.... AGAIN.
I suggest you folks take a Physics 101 course on-line.
There are lots of TOP universities offering them free now.
I got some good boilerplate when we were talking physics and airplanes and brains.
But then you all had to bring in VPW and then shift the topic to me and my lowly defects.
I prefer the physics discussion.
Have any of you ever taken a Physics 101 course at the university level?
...at the High School level?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
yes yes yes!
Now open your Magic PFAL Spell Book boys and girls...and invoke the wierwille spirit...PFAL interprets itself...wierwille interprets himself...wierwille's interpretation trumps any other interpretation...wierwille's determination alters your self-determination....uhm...more like he hijacked it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Sooo.....God raised Jesus Christ from the dead.
Please explain how God almighty used spiritual laws in OVERCOMING natural laws in Christ's resurrection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
This is a list of on-topic questions raised by what you introduced into the conversation. Can you or can you not answer these questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
when trolls invade a topic - it becomes about them because they introduce off-topic stuff and anything else to detract from a normal discussion - the person acting like a troll then acts offended when called out about it saying we're making it about him. that's playing the victim card.
This thread has pretty much been off the tracks from the get-go...starting with Mike's goofy "thesis" ...thus the discussion has been mostly ABOUT THE WAY MIKE REDEFINES TERMS AND CONCEPTS and even tries to shoehorn in some wierwille/PFAL bull$hit / pseudoscience...folks question him on the re-definitions, point out contradictions and nonsense - and he gets offended...Mike makes it sound like it's our fault that he's such a poor communicator...oh well
now he's using the condescending ploy
Mike introduces ideas from wierwille and PFAL - but he says they're right out of the Bible - and takes offense when he gets called out about it...just ask for chapter and verse on whatever idea he posits - and it will more than likely be some passage that wierwille twisted around to support his screwy ideology
condescending - people who act like a trolls SAY they're interested in the topic
Edited by T-Bonetypos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Ah, scientism. A dogmatism. Like the dogmatism of victor’s private religion. Yeah, no, that ain’t science. But, sure, I’ll accept that scientism is a type of religion.
Like all dogmatic ideologies, there is no science involved with scientism.
Honest scientists don’t try to explain God.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
It's that good ole cognitive dissonance kicking in. He states things as if they are verifiable science, in this case spiritual laws, and then when questioned he has no legitimate answers and becomes agitated towards participants in the conversation, resulting to name calling, insults, etc. It's what happens when wierwille's half baked theology scambles someone's eggs. I recognize it because it happened to me to a marked degree in the 12 years I ate, drank, and slept all things way international. I had to do a real honest check up from the neck up to find my way out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
That's right insult your audience. That'll win them over
Perhaps you should take a high school physics class. You were the one claiming the lifting force was in the particles, weren't you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Oh, I doubt that you’re really into the stated topic of this discussion – you act too much like a troll.
That just doesn’t ring true. You complain about what dullards we are compared to your brainy friends / Facebook discussion groups.
Do your professor friends and Facebook groups know about you acting like a troll on Grease Spot Cafe for 20 years?
do they know about your devotion to a cult-leader who had claimed he heard from God it was okay to plagiarize other people’s work and sexually molest women?
Are any of your professors / Facebook friends published authors? Are any of them women?
I’ll tell you why all this is relevant. Legitimate scientists, professors, published authors have intellectual standards. Plagiarism is a no-no. That relates to having integrity and a good work ethic also. And being a sexual predator as a side gig is not okay – it’s not just morally wrong – it’s against the law.
Now take wierwille who acted like he was above the law - a law unto himself...and yet YOU defend him!
I wonder what they would think of someone who defends such a creep like wierwille to the hilt?
Why do you keep coming back here to pull the same old repetitive act of trolling when people confront you about it? I don't hear of you complaining about your brainy friends / Facbook folks giving you a hard time - really - why do you keep coming back?!?!
...Geez Louise - Jesus told His disciples if people didn't want to hear about the gospel message, then just leave - shake the dust off your sandals...why do you stick around here? honestly!!! I'd like to know.
Do you act like that with your professor friends / Facebook group discussions?
Do you refer to us as “those dummies on Grease Spot who don’t understand you”?
Edited by T-Bonetypos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
hey you big dummy, I found these at https://kidadl.com/quotes/sanford-and-son-quotes-from-the-classic-70s-sitcom :
1. "Fred Sanford: I still want to sow some wild oats.
Lamont Sanford: At your age, you don't have no wild oats, you got shredded wheat."
2. "Lamont Sanford: You know what they say, the truth will set you free.
Fred Sanford: Your uncle Edgar told the truth, and the judge gave him six months."
3. "Lamont Sanford: You're a dirty old man ya know that?
Fred Sanford: And I'm gonna be one 'till I'm a dead old man."
4. "Fred Sanford: Let's do like they did in the Bible: Moses spread his arms out and the Red Sea divided.
Lamont Sanford: So we're gonna do like Moses?
Fred Sanford: No, we're gonna do like the Red Sea and split."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Back on topic…
One of Ethelbert’s appendices is called “THE Man of God.” He provides a long list of OT verses, but no names. HOWEVER, a simple mathematical equation is presented:
6 x 13
I’m not saying I have the secret decoder ring, but I bet that 6 is the number of THE The Men of God to which the music coordinator referred.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
well maybe TWI is a non-prophet organization after all
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I liked this pun:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Warning: the magic tricks and pseudoscience taught in PFAL should NOT be attempted at home or at Twig. Leave that to professional con artists – someone might get hurt:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
and here's the backstory on the new class - at HQ they used the scientific method on which class to update - PFAL or the Advanced Class:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
ROFLMAO@T-Bone...I loved those memes you posted, especially the non-prophet one...classic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I inclueded Ethelbert in the following thread that should add some insight on his numbers routine:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
OldSkool - thanks for the link: http://www.posterite-d-abraham.org/BULLINGER/index_companion.html
Hey Nathan_Jr just a suggestion on how I deal with Bullinger...some of his detailed work - like in the appendices serve me as a good starting...almost like using a concordance or topical Bible - I try to separate the data from the belief system of the author - like with topical Bibles the editor might group certain passages mentioning "spirit" together and list them as it having to do with the manifestations of the spirit - wierwille did that a lot on many subjects.
Bullinger and his research team were very organized and hyper-focused. that can be to your advantage if you look past his ideology...it's a lot easier identifying and isolating his ideology than wierwille's - cuz there is some logic to Bullinger whereas wierwille was incompetent, illogical and more eclectic
PFAL taught me wrong on a lot of things...and I had to make up for it by getting into stuff hermeneutics and systematic theology to sort out what's what...to this day I still try to exercise good critical thinking skills with everything I read - even favorite authors/editors of Study Bibles and systematic theology, etc. I don't agree 100 % with everything. I go with what makes sense to my pea brain.
I am aware of my own confirmation bias - I believe the Bible is inspired of God but there's a human element in it. So, I part company when authors are sticklers for the inerrancy of Scripture. But the same author may be fine on basic tenets of Christianity - like the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the 2 great commandments, our sin nature, trusting God, the moral demands of Scripture, etc.
Having some intellectual standards is a good thing. I believe Bullinger's were pretty good. wierwille had none - so PFAL should not be considered the gold standard....I think ever-developing critical thinking skills is a pretty good standard - if something is valid - if it's truth - if it's a fact - it will hold up under the closest scrutiny.
The only good thing I can say about PFAL is it got me interested in systematic theology, hermeneutics, philosophy of religion...It was like having a swimming coach who didn't know how to swim himself and he wasn't even a good teacher - but the experience introduced me to swimming - and I now love swimming.
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The "greatest secret in the world today" is how did Mike learn to so efficaciously push the buttons of GSC netizens to keep wasting time on vain babblings (useless/fruitless interaction) on a topic that even trained philosophers and/or scientists will likely never resolve... let alone a handful of disgruntled PFLAP grads.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I agree. I admitted to some of the benefits of his work. He is a good STARTING point. A good way to get a taste. HOWEVER, I do find his ideology distracting - that's me.
As you have surely found out, another man's work is no substitute whatsoever for one's own work on matters such as these. Regurgitation is no substitute for serious inquiry.
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.