The question (raging for the moment), is how could docvic teach that new birth was not available before Pentecost, yet also teach that there were those born of the seed of the serpent, way before Pentecost, and since docvic also taught that the advo only copies, and comes up with nothing new on his own, and if new birth of spirit within wasn't available before Pentecost -- how could there be *seed boys* before the day of Pentecost, alive and operating in the OT??
Yer input is welcome here.
Good point. If the new birth was part of the mystery, and the mystery was not known before it was revealed to Paul, then how is it Satan managed to counterfeit it centuries before he knew about it? Very interesting indeed.
I don't get it? Why are you so latched on such a triviality? Yes, I threw that label out without thinking much about who it fit. It was a guess! There could be other reasons for posters harping on the "assumed teacher role" accusation. I just don't get it where you plan to go with this stuff?
Good point. If the new birth was part of the mystery, and the mystery was not known before it was revealed to Paul, then how is it Satan managed to counterfeit it centuries before he knew about it? Very interesting indeed.
I'll get to an answer tonight (I'm at work right now). :)
I sense a general movement toward civility here and I want to thank you. It’s catchy. Let’s make it grow, ok?
***
Dmiller an I slightly discussed the seed of the serpent being available before God’s seed and I made a proposal involving Adam naming the animals. You asked if I was serious and I responded that the context should have explained my level of seriousness in four places. You asked that i point out those four places, so here goes.
My Post #604 to dmiller is the first place where I started answering him. In that post I brought up Adam’s sonship from Luke and I prefaced it thusly:
You then wrote: ‘Docvic taught that the adversary can only COPY what God does.’ __ I’d like to see that in writing and see the context. Of course, I remember something like it, but I don’t know where it is in writing. If this is important to you we can find at least one such place, but still it would be better to find them all, like with the law of believing. __ But I’ll proceed with some preliminary data.
Then in Post #606 I reminded doojable of this preliminary data caveat with and repeated it again in the following paragraphs with:
Doojable,
I’m just hashing out some ideas on this.
The adversary's copy jobs are never exact.
The idea of having a son, with that bond, and the infusion of DNA, and the similar characteristics was there, with Adam, and even with the animals reproduction.
Here’s a good possibility: Adam trained the animals with his personality stamped into them. Naming the animals meant far more than getting out a Dymo label maker and putting “Leo” on the lion’s collar. Adam trained them to behave the way he wanted them to behave. Adam put his mark in them.
Plus, (and I think this is the best so far):
Genesis 3:16 with the idea of the seed of the woman was out there in the open for the adversary to leach off of.”
There are the four caveats that indicate I was NOT totally serious about Adam naming the animals being where the adversary got the idea of seeding.
***
I am a bit more serious about the stand-alone idea of Adam naming the animals being more than him simply giving them labels.
In the Orientalisms class we were taught that the word “name” carries far more meaning in Bible cultures than it does to us in our modern Western culture. When we think of “name” we think of a simple string of characters filling Box#1 on our Driver’s License. In the Orient the word “name” carries with it reputation, credit rating, family ties, personal accomplishments and failures, and manner of behavior.
So, what would you say is the significance of Genesis mentioning that Adam named the animals? I see him doing things with the animals just like he tilled the Garden. He made them all in his image, to conform to his will. At that time Adam was the god of this world. Later he transferred that power to the adversary.
***
I’m only just now getting into the promised replies. It’s raining and hailing out so I think I’ll finish today.
You wrote; “do you think that worship of PFAL (and therefore veepee) might've had something to do with the collapse of TWI?”
I do think many overdid their respect for VPW. It was alarming to me in the 70’s so I resisted it, and now I think I overdid THAT. If I had more meek to him I would have solved many more of my personal problems back then by unreservedly applying what he taught. I was often too busy researching out subtle things and I suffered for it.
Yes many did focus on Dr’s flesh and worshipped him causing many problems then and later. If they (and I) had focused their great respect not on the man and his flesh but on the revelations God was teaching him and he taught us, I think that would have PREVENTED the collapse of TWI.
I even think that overdone respect for the film class’ soundtrack was subtly responsible for much trouble, even the collapse. I know I too failed here. I used to think of the soundtrack as the heart of the ministry and the books as mere souvenirs of the class. If we had shifted our great respect from that soundtrack to the books, like Dr urged for the last ten years of his life, then many problems could have been avoided.
***
You wrote: “Most (if not all) of your time is spent promoting PFAL and veepee, usually you only promote God when pressed on the issue”
If it’s the case that PFAL is God’s written Word addressed to us grads, then my promotion of written PFAL is promoting God. God’s Word is as much as God as God is God.
I do not promote VPW. I respect him, and I think he had some superlative qualities (both good and bad).
Now please don’t paste in that “shook the earth” stuff.
I’ve OFTEN explained that I think Mickey Mantle also was a resident of the tail ends of many human bell curves (again both good and bad). Thousands and thousands of other humans also have many superlative qualities.
I’ve also explained that the “earth shaking” comment of mine was referring to how the earthly senses realm and it’s dominance in our lives was given the ultimate challenge by the spiritual perspective that’s available in the revelations God taught to Dr and Dr taught to us.
I didn’t say he shook Planet Earth (with a capital E), but that... I think the way I put it was... “When he walked the earth shook.” When he WALKED! That means when he walked WITH GOD. When ANYONE walks with God the earth (earthly realm) and it’s god do shake.
It would be interesting to see someday how many times I explained those comments and how many times the explanations were ignored but the original comments pasted and re-pasted. This is one reason I have been often reluctant to answer some posters at some times. Why waste the time if it wont be listened to?
BTW, another reason (there are several) I often have postponed answering someone’s questions is to generate drama and command greater attention on the answer when I finally do answer. It’s a teaching device.... BUT I’M NOT TEACHING... honest! No, I’m just informing, and pointing out ideas, and informing.... but never teaching! That would be wrong... everyone knows THAT!
***
Now PLEASE count the number of times I just promoted God in this post without being pressed and reckon it to my account.
The idea of having a son, with that bond, and the infusion of DNA, and the similar characteristics was there, with Adam, and even with the animals reproduction.
Here’s a good possibility: Adam trained the animals with his personality stamped into them. Naming the animals meant far more than getting out a Dymo label maker and putting “Leo” on the lion’s collar. Adam trained them to behave the way he wanted them to behave. Adam put his mark in them.
Plus, (and I think this is the best so far):
Genesis 3:16 with the idea of the seed of the woman was out there in the open for the adversary to leach off of.”
There are the four caveats that indicate I was NOT totally serious about Adam naming the animals being where the adversary got the idea of seeding.
***
I am a bit more serious about the stand-alone idea of Adam naming the animals being more than him simply giving them labels.
In the Orientalisms class we were taught that the word “name” carries far more meaning in Bible cultures than it does to us in our modern Western culture. When we think of “name” we think of a simple string of characters filling Box#1 on our Driver’s License. In the Orient the word “name” carries with it reputation, credit rating, family ties, personal accomplishments and failures, and manner of behavior.
So, what would you say is the significance of Genesis mentioning that Adam named the animals? I see him doing things with the animals just like he tilled the Garden. He made them all in his image, to conform to his will. At that time Adam was the god of this world. Later he transferred that power to the adversary.
***
I’m only just now getting into the promised replies. It’s raining and hailing out so I think I’ll finish today.
This post has been edited by Mike: Today, 01:21 PM
Mike, I don't think I ever engaged you on the matter of Adam naming th animals. I do think you have a problem with this logic though, especially if you are going to also keep PFAL in it's status of being absolutley rigth on every point.
Genesis states that GOD created soul life in the animals. In PFAL, vpw stated that "soul" is what make "you you." Presumalbly that would be the same for the animals. God made the animals what and who they are. Adam's naming of them was supplemental to all the God did. I'm not going into this subject anymore until I've had some more time to look at it in depth - so I'm asking for an hiatus on it.
Now regarding Nicodemus...... according to pfal, Jesus ushered in the Christ administration. If you look carefully you will see that this has 2 elements to it
1. the fulfilling of the Law and accomplishing salvation
2. the preparation of the people who would live in the next administration
So, it only makes sense that Jesus would be the only one who could start and introduce that subject - since it would be his death and resurrection that wuld make the new birth possible. Only Jesus could point to the "so what's next" factor of redemption. After all, for centuries the Jewish people had waited for the Messiah, now that he had come - Now what?
I lean more towards the fact that being born of the seed of the serpent is not what vpw said it was. That it was not Satan's counterfiet of the new birth. ( and Yes, vpw said this many many many times in the Advanced class. - It might not have been written down - but if there are many eyewitnesses that have the same notes in their syllabi - then there you go -It was said! I'm not going to accept that all those people heard things wrong.)
Raf and dmilller,
What about Jesus' teaching of the new birth to Nicodemus? How can it be part of the mystery if it was known before Pentecost?
And why must the counterfeit always be after the fact?
Why the silence on these two points, detailed more in earlier posts, and the silence on the several proposals I made with them days ago?
You wrote: "Adam's naming of them was supplemental to all the God did."
I agree.
The same is true today when we train an animal, especially from birth. God set up the soul life base of the animal, and people can then train that soul.
When a soul-man is "worked on" by the adversary it may be like training an animal.
I'm not committed to these ideas, just trying to show dmiller that it CAN be worked. When I see an Apparent Contradiction (AC) I keep working it until it fits. With my method a declaration of an Actual Contradiction is never considered.
I don't think my idea violates what you said. God built the base, the soul, and Adam formed it's development. Ditto for a seedboy.
Jesus received that revelation from the Father that a new birth was in the works. That means that the new birth was NOT a secret, and not part of the mystery. It fits in WITH the mystery, but it was not a secret itself.
Jesus marveled that Nicodemus did not know about the new birth, so that tells me that at least SOME of the new birth idea was in the OT so that Nicodemus should have known it.
If some of the new birth was in the OT and/or Jesus know about it before Pentecost then it was not a secret.
The adversary could counterfeit the seed idea from the OT setup of the idea, even before it happened.
BTW, still another reason I sometimes dodge questions (using the biological “Ignore” feature) is because I must budget my time. I get hit with many, many questions, many more than most posters. Some questions are very insincere and downright insulting, like prosecutorial. I must prioritize my responses and sometimes that means ignoring them or brushing them off with equal prosecutorial zest.
It’s so odd that I was castigated so much for implementing the biological “Ignore” feature, yet when the electronic “Ignore” feature became available one of it’s first users was one of the staunches critics of my artistic and righteous dodging.
***
You wrote: “Mike, the reason I "have no use" for your essays is because you spend a lot of time typing a lot of words that end up going around in circles and never answering whatever questions were posed. If you ever got around to "straight answers" then maybe I'd be interested, but your history (since you're so keen on citing history) is that you don't ever answer, you dodge and avoid leading me (and others I think) to doubt the sincerity of your discourse.”
Some of your observations may have had a bias though. Yes there is a sadly rich history to our past interactions. I think I may be soon outlining that history’s origins before you registered here at GSC, but suffice it to say here that when you would show up on a thread I’d often halt my openness. Prior to your showing up I may have been in an open mood and you simply didn’t see it.
You wrote that the reason you ask about my more sensational statements is because they're statements I’ve “made that are so far beyond anything else anyone else has ever come up with...” and that you “...(and others) are interested in the basis of those statements...”
Ok, then if it’s genuine interest, and not a mere smear campaign, they you must sit tight for the whole essay’s worth of explanatory buildup.
***
You then wrote: “...but you never answer the questions about them... you only scold us for being so naive and not 'mastering' the material. That, coupled with your reluctance to 'stand by' your statements, leads me to think that you're afraid of them.”
But I did show that I answered some in recent posts here. The answers may have been delivered to other more polite posters and so more antagonistic challengers like you and your friends may have missed them.
BTW, I'm not forgetting that you've been civil to me lately, just recounting our history.
***
Speaking of sensational statememts, it looks like CM is giving me a run for the money on statements “...that are so far beyond anything else anyone else has ever come up with...”
CM just wrote:
"your lack of understanding does not motivate me
love does
you really want to know about the spirit
then you will have to live some of it
which includes hell where the adversary is
and you might be surprised who else is there"
Who do you think he saw in hell?
Abraham Lincoln? No, probably not.
The apostle Paul? No, probably not.
OH! The curiosity is getting to me.
Oh MY GOSH!
I hope CM wasn’t seeing this mystery man with foreknowledge
(known to be more powerful than Superman’s X-Ray Vision)
and that he saw ME there!!!
Oh NO! I’m doomed as doomed can be, ya know!
Oh BUT, what if Pat Sajak is there too?
Well then it might not be so bad.
Oh my! Isn’t this a quandary.
I'm going completely mental, I must say.
Which should I choose Pat in hell or CM on GreaseSpot?
They’re both fine fellows, ya know.
Oh Give me a break!
To be without Mr Sajak would certainly be a hell in itself,
but I wouldn’t want to offend Mr CM either, or is it neither?
Oh no, another quandry!
This is certainly NOT my lucky day.
But then again it could be if made the RIGHT choice!
But then if not I’m surely doomed as doomed can be.
You wrote: “...that's how you 'present' your posts to us... like "How dare we question what you're saying, it's God's Truth!" but you've not showed us the "why" or the "how" you got to that point, so therefore we question.”
I think you may be confusing my tone of voice with a tone you did often hear in the past from grumpy leadership. Instead of me feeling “How dare you question me and God!” I often have a feeling “How dare you use that bullying TWI technique on me!” and I feel that way only toward the very aggressive and impolite posters who come at me first.
People who disagree with me civilly I can totally accept and be civil back.
***
SOMETIMES I fight back with equal ferocity to demonstrate to non-participating readers that they too don’t have to take the antiPFAL rhetoric that’s been flying about for 20 years now.
I remember the days when JAL and Ralph D came to town in the late 80’s and early 90’s with their live version of the ferocious antiPFAL tones we often see here. In those meetings I saw some quiet proPFAL people rhetorically beat up LCM style by some of the participants. I think the meek and intimidated proPFAL people out there need to see someone stand up to the bullying techniques so despised by many posters here, but so heavily and hypocritically used by the same posters without compunction by antiPFAL people here.
Certainly the old leadership that claims to support watered down and re-written “PFAL principles” are incapable and/or unwilling to set the example of standing up to tough talk like that, so I volunteer for the job.
***
I had written: “What’s the matter with someone speaking God's Truth? Are you of the opinion that no one can do that? Do you believe in the 9 manifestations? Do you believe in God? just where are YOU coming from, Tom.”
You retorted with: “There you go putting words in my mouth again Mike. I didn't say that or allude to that. This would be a good example of your 'essay method' mentioned above. Pulling something out of thin air.”
I had written: “If you are going to warn readers about me, shouldn’t you be open and honest about your beliefs? What do you believe? Who is your God?”
And again you retorted with: “If you think that by my letting folks know 'where you're coming from' is "warning them" doesn't that speak to a little bit of paranoia on your part? ...or maybe that you really are trying to mislead folks?”
See, you sidesteped the issue with an insult of paranoia, just like I’m often accused of doing.
If you’re going to be an “informer” as you admitted, then I think the people you inform should know where YOU are coming from? ...or maybe YOU are really trying to mislead folks!”
Maybe YOU ought to promote God (as well as WHICH one) a little as you inform, just like you accused me of being deficient in.
***
“I'll ask you for about the five millionth time... "How is it 'discrediting' you if I'm just asking you about statements that you've made?”
By selectivity. News organizations can slant things by what they choose NOT to report.
If you select to report someone’s punch line to a long involved joke, but omit the buildup, doesn’t that rob the joke of it’s humor? And in some cases couldn’t that even possibly slander the teller of the joke?
It works for serious stuff too. You can select a dramatic punch line of mine and omit the buildup, thereby making me look kooky.
The very fact that none of you guys saved the locations nor the contexts of my statements is telling.
Mike, please don't feel like you have to respond to my every comment and/or observation. Read them (if you like), use them or ignore them. Of course, if you'd like to respond to everything that's your choice. The things I seek answers from you about I think I ask pretty clearly.
Your general "tone" has been much better these last few pages, the venom in your typing has crept out with far less frequency. To civilly "discuss" with folks doesn't mean that you have to agree with them. Please try to remember not to attack folks just because they have a different view than you.
Some of your observations may have had a bias though. Yes there is a sadly rich history to our past interactions. I think I may be soon outlining that history’s origins before you registered here at GSC, but suffice it to say here that when you would show up on a thread I’d often halt my openness. Prior to your showing up I may have been in an open mood and you simply didn’t see it.
I have no clue what you're talking about here other than I'm quite sure that I'm not the first poster that you've had "trouble" with. You really could save yourself some time and not bother with the 'outlining the past' and concentrate on how you interact with the folks in the 'present'.
oh... and I think that asking someone "don't you think you're being a little paranoid" is hardly an insult. Please quit trying to drag me into things or compare my posting style to yours. We're different people. My interactions with you have always been of the "how dare you treat these people that way" nature or the "how in the heck did you come up with that" nature.
And if you think those statements of yours I posted were all I'm wondering about... there's much more that I would like to know the how's and why's of... but we'll just see how it goes... enjoy the rain... send some this way...
...oh... and I've never done the cut and paste about the "earth shaking"... you posted that stuff before I ever got here...
I’m very thankful for this most recent post of yours.
You’re a civil man. :)
***
I will look over some of the things in my hopper and start cutting things out.
It has been a bit dicey for me to deal with old matters (when things were much hotter) and not rekindle the flames. I’m also thankful that you were able to tolerate my recent handling of these older edgy matters.
Some things may be useful to still post on to for the benefit of others, but I will cut that to a minimum. The “earth shaking” pasteups were probably WW’s doing, and I thought could they use some explanation. I sometimes forget who is who in the heat of battle, mostly looking at the wordplay only. Plus there've been so many. I'm sorry I blamed you for that.
I don’t blame you for having been extremely curious about some of the statements I made. Some of them I made to deliberately stimulate curiosity, yet remain honest. It’s my heart’s desire to sometime, even soon, get to explain them here.
***
I admit I have been rough at times, but I always TRY to only resort to that after I’ve been hit hard, and often only after multiple hits. There are times when I have made mistakes in this effort to only return punches after being hit.
Last September, on a TWI guy’s website this happened. This was the guy who was only doing the board to collect statistics for a school project and his site only lasted a few weeks.
In a typical many-poster mêlée there I had swung hard at a poster named Jim, who I believe posts here too.
I had said to all there: “I asked Jim on the previous page to produce for me an authoritative source for learning God's Word and will ...something infallible that we can stand on and never budge ...something we never have to back off from, like Dr prayed for in 1942. __ Jim was quick on the draw to cast doubts on Dr's material as being from God, yet HE backed off when I challenged him to produce something better. That's the pattern of all those grads seduced by the dark force: tear down, but never build back up. It's easy to tear down, and grads are seduced into thinking they are doing God a favor in doing such destruction, kind of like how Saul of Tarsus did, but they never can build back up anything like what God and Dr built in the PFAL writings.”
Jim eventually wrote back: “I didn't really back down, I just had to clean the garage today instead of sitting in front of the computer...”
I went back to the record and saw that my harshness was uncalled for in his case, and wrote (with these same colored fonts) this apology:
“I will give you more time to answer. I apologize if I was too hasty. I do look forward to your answers. __ If I was unnecessarily tough on you in any other way, please observe that I am under constant attack from many who wish me ill will. This has been going on for years. When you enter a bar room fight, it's kind of normal for punches to be thrown in the wrong directions at times. The military calls it "collateral damage" and it must be accepted as part of the job. __ Since I don't know you yet, I'll try to pull my punches in your vicinity unless I see you seriously swing at me.”
***
I know that this same thing has happened here on occasion, and when I became aware of it I did my best to apologize to the few I was rough on without cause. In the confusion it happens. One summer I was in daily battle with 74 posters, many simultaneously. I didn’t do the counting; some other poster did. It can get confusing.
I remember hearing from CoolWaters long ago that I brought one woman poster to tears once. I THINK I found out who she was and apologized. My memory is fuzzy here, and if I failed to find her and apologize I want to and will.
If there are any posters here who feel I did this to them I want to issue a general apology now, and if they show me the location or help me find the location in my files with a few keywords I’ll post a more specific apology.
***
Just a short re-cap of my history before you registered here, Tom, may help you see why I can get pretty feisty. I was literally dragged onto GreaseSpot by two posters who splashed my private e-mails to them on the board. I was not a registered member then, just a lurker. There were two threads about me, and they contained MANY of my e-mails pasted in word-for-word in their entirety. No one expressed the thought that it was unethical, not one. It lasted for about a month. I was lurking and patiently waited for the storm to die down. In that storm I was insulted and maligned in a hideous way. If it were to happen to any other poster here there would be fireworks and all sorts of complaints.
I waited about three months for things to die down and started quietly and politely posting my message. I prefaced it by saying I had some extreme views. I went slowly to lay out my message quietly. Within days of my posting I was fingered as the weird guy who was the subject of those two denouncing threads. Then the pile-on started. But I was ready and fought back hard. Many posters here, I strongly suspect, had never in ten or more years encountered any resistance to their PFAL bashing. I think they needed to be shown strong resistance so I fought hard.
That pile-on has gradually ended, but only very gradually, and I’ve been a fighting Irishman all this time with those who want to fight me. I think I’ve done a good job of forcing them to consider that their antiPFAL opinions are only just that, opinions, and that they were poorly thought through opinions in many instances.
If I don’t convince many people here to accept my opinions, at least I get them to re-think their own.
***
I would love to get into more of the statements of mine that you found odd, quickly, outrageous, and/or crazy. It’s all a matter of time and set-up. Maybe we can get into the Return of Christ, but we need to start at the beginning and go slow.
How about that one on PFAL helping us to defy death? That would be easier. I’m open to suggestions.
I don’t blame you for having been extremely curious about some of the statements I made. Some of them I made to deliberately stimulate curiosity, yet remain honest. It’s my heart’s desire to sometime, even soon, get to explain them here.
thus my comment that "you can't expect to make the statements you make here and not be questioned"... if 'some' were made to stimulate curiosity then just don't get bent out of shape when people question you.
***
I admit I have been rough at times, but I always TRY to only resort to that after I’ve been hit hard, and often only after multiple hits. There are times when I have made mistakes in this effort to only return punches after being hit.
why 'resort' to it at all? it does your message no good... why not try the 'Ghandi approach'? (or the 'Jesus approach? i.e. turn the other cheek?)
I know that this same thing has happened here on occasion, and when I became aware of it I did my best to apologize to the few I was rough on without cause. In the confusion it happens. One summer I was in daily battle with 74 posters, many simultaneously. I didn’t do the counting; some other poster did. It can get confusing.
I agree, IMHO you are in a lot of 'fights' with a lot of different folks. Why do you think that is? I've seen others disagree in discussion with those you 'fight' with without fighting, there's discourse (sometimes cordial, sometimes not) but no swinging of fists. It is possible to enter a bar where a fight is going on and not join in.
I remember hearing from CoolWaters long ago that I brought one woman poster to tears once. I THINK I found out who she was and apologized. My memory is fuzzy here, and if I failed to find her and apologize I want to and will.
If there are any posters here who feel I did this to them I want to issue a general apology now, and if they show me the location or help me find the location in my files with a few keywords I’ll post a more specific apology.
My suggestion would be to 'let sleeping dogs lie'... it's done and over... and besides there's probably not any number of aplologies you can issue that will keep people from approaching you with a wary eye... that's just the way it is... just keep trying to get better (in every way every day) at not getting upset if someone disagrees with you or questions you... and if they really do 'attack' you, don't respond in kind if you're serious about not wanting to hurt people, acknowledge to yourself that there must be something you're doing to attract the fights...
Just a short re-cap of my history before you registered here, Tom, may help you see why I can get pretty feisty....
If that happened to you that was wrong. Emails shouldn't be posted without the consent of both parties.
I waited about three months for things to die down and started quietly and politely posting my message. I prefaced it by saying I had some extreme views. I went slowly to lay out my message quietly. Within days of my posting I was fingered as the weird guy who was the subject of those two denouncing threads. Then the pile-on started. But I was ready and fought back hard. which probably didn't win you many listeners to your message, but I understand Many posters here, I strongly suspect, had never in ten or more years encountered any resistance to their PFAL bashing. I think they needed to be shown strong resistance so I fought hard.
But Mike, you're at an "Anti-TWI" site (at least that's the impression I get), and PFAL was TWI's main tool of outreach... did you not think that 'PFAL bashing' would be a popular sport here? Did you not think that you would encounter resistance to your message regardless of whether or not the previous email thing had happened? You say "I think they needed to be shown strong resistance so I fought hard." Well... I'm not going to ask you why, you had your reasons... I'm just saying that don't you think it might be time to "adjust your approach"?
That pile-on has gradually ended, but only very gradually, and I’ve been a fighting Irishman all this time with those who want to fight me. I think I’ve done a good job of forcing them to consider that their antiPFAL opinions are only just that, opinions, and that they were poorly thought through opinions in many instances.
Seriously Mike, one of the problems with that is that you assume that anyone who disagrees with you wants to fight you. Maybe they just want to disagree with you. Consider that. And yes, their anti PFAL opinions are just that, opinions... but so are your PFAL is God breathed opinions... and here on this board people should expect to be able to have opinions and not have to fight about it. But there you are, always ready, always taking on all comers... IF PFAL is God breathed, don't you think He can handle it? There are no crowns for "defending PFAL on the internet"... your message really will have a better chance of getting across if you quit 'swinging at' everyone who disagrees... you can still post your message, just don't be surprised if folks disagree with you or want to know "how the heck you came up with that"...
If I don’t convince many people here to accept my opinions, at least I get them to re-think their own.
I'm no expert, but I think you get them to think of you as someone who they cannot have a 'civil' discussion with, someone who has treated folks very hatefully for disagreeing with him when they voiced their opinions... but that's just my take on it.
***
I would love to get into more of the statements of mine that you found odd, quickly, outrageous, and/or crazy. It’s all a matter of time and set-up. Maybe we can get into the Return of Christ, but we need to start at the beginning and go slow.
I'm sure we will... at some point.
How about that one on PFAL helping us to defy death? That would be easier. I’m open to suggestions.
Sure... go ahead... explain that one... but remember, people just might have different opinions than you do.
From the Treasury Department's announcements of the soon to be issued bills, and from past similar patterns.
The counterfeit won't be perfect, but it doesn't have to be to be a counterfeit. All it needs to be is passable, and if the counterfeiters have a strong grip on the entire population (like the adversary does), then even a sloppy copy can be forced fit on the population. (Remember, this is an analogy, so it’s bound to get stretched thin.)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
89
149
306
85
Popular Days
Feb 10
62
Feb 20
61
Feb 11
46
Mar 2
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 89 posts
CM 149 posts
Mike 306 posts
Tom Strange 85 posts
Popular Days
Feb 10 2006
62 posts
Feb 20 2006
61 posts
Feb 11 2006
46 posts
Mar 2 2006
45 posts
Posted Images
Raf
Good point. If the new birth was part of the mystery, and the mystery was not known before it was revealed to Paul, then how is it Satan managed to counterfeit it centuries before he knew about it? Very interesting indeed.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf and dmilller,
What about Jesus' teaching of the new birth to Nicodemus? How can it be part of the mystery if it was known before Pentecost?
And why must the counterfeit always be after the fact?
Why the silence on these two points, detailed more in earlier posts, and the silence on the several proposals I made with them days ago?
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
rascal,
I don't get it? Why are you so latched on such a triviality? Yes, I threw that label out without thinking much about who it fit. It was a guess! There could be other reasons for posters harping on the "assumed teacher role" accusation. I just don't get it where you plan to go with this stuff?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I'll get to an answer tonight (I'm at work right now). :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom Strange,
I sense a general movement toward civility here and I want to thank you. It’s catchy. Let’s make it grow, ok?
***
Dmiller an I slightly discussed the seed of the serpent being available before God’s seed and I made a proposal involving Adam naming the animals. You asked if I was serious and I responded that the context should have explained my level of seriousness in four places. You asked that i point out those four places, so here goes.
My Post #604 to dmiller is the first place where I started answering him. In that post I brought up Adam’s sonship from Luke and I prefaced it thusly:
You then wrote: ‘Docvic taught that the adversary can only COPY what God does.’ __ I’d like to see that in writing and see the context. Of course, I remember something like it, but I don’t know where it is in writing. If this is important to you we can find at least one such place, but still it would be better to find them all, like with the law of believing. __ But I’ll proceed with some preliminary data.
Then in Post #606 I reminded doojable of this preliminary data caveat with and repeated it again in the following paragraphs with:
Doojable,
I’m just hashing out some ideas on this.
The adversary's copy jobs are never exact.
The idea of having a son, with that bond, and the infusion of DNA, and the similar characteristics was there, with Adam, and even with the animals reproduction.
Here’s a good possibility: Adam trained the animals with his personality stamped into them. Naming the animals meant far more than getting out a Dymo label maker and putting “Leo” on the lion’s collar. Adam trained them to behave the way he wanted them to behave. Adam put his mark in them.
Plus, (and I think this is the best so far):
Genesis 3:16 with the idea of the seed of the woman was out there in the open for the adversary to leach off of.”
There are the four caveats that indicate I was NOT totally serious about Adam naming the animals being where the adversary got the idea of seeding.
***
I am a bit more serious about the stand-alone idea of Adam naming the animals being more than him simply giving them labels.
In the Orientalisms class we were taught that the word “name” carries far more meaning in Bible cultures than it does to us in our modern Western culture. When we think of “name” we think of a simple string of characters filling Box#1 on our Driver’s License. In the Orient the word “name” carries with it reputation, credit rating, family ties, personal accomplishments and failures, and manner of behavior.
So, what would you say is the significance of Genesis mentioning that Adam named the animals? I see him doing things with the animals just like he tilled the Garden. He made them all in his image, to conform to his will. At that time Adam was the god of this world. Later he transferred that power to the adversary.
***
I’m only just now getting into the promised replies. It’s raining and hailing out so I think I’ll finish today.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom Strange,
You wrote; “do you think that worship of PFAL (and therefore veepee) might've had something to do with the collapse of TWI?”
I do think many overdid their respect for VPW. It was alarming to me in the 70’s so I resisted it, and now I think I overdid THAT. If I had more meek to him I would have solved many more of my personal problems back then by unreservedly applying what he taught. I was often too busy researching out subtle things and I suffered for it.
Yes many did focus on Dr’s flesh and worshipped him causing many problems then and later. If they (and I) had focused their great respect not on the man and his flesh but on the revelations God was teaching him and he taught us, I think that would have PREVENTED the collapse of TWI.
I even think that overdone respect for the film class’ soundtrack was subtly responsible for much trouble, even the collapse. I know I too failed here. I used to think of the soundtrack as the heart of the ministry and the books as mere souvenirs of the class. If we had shifted our great respect from that soundtrack to the books, like Dr urged for the last ten years of his life, then many problems could have been avoided.
***
You wrote: “Most (if not all) of your time is spent promoting PFAL and veepee, usually you only promote God when pressed on the issue”
If it’s the case that PFAL is God’s written Word addressed to us grads, then my promotion of written PFAL is promoting God. God’s Word is as much as God as God is God.
I do not promote VPW. I respect him, and I think he had some superlative qualities (both good and bad).
Now please don’t paste in that “shook the earth” stuff.
I’ve OFTEN explained that I think Mickey Mantle also was a resident of the tail ends of many human bell curves (again both good and bad). Thousands and thousands of other humans also have many superlative qualities.
I’ve also explained that the “earth shaking” comment of mine was referring to how the earthly senses realm and it’s dominance in our lives was given the ultimate challenge by the spiritual perspective that’s available in the revelations God taught to Dr and Dr taught to us.
I didn’t say he shook Planet Earth (with a capital E), but that... I think the way I put it was... “When he walked the earth shook.” When he WALKED! That means when he walked WITH GOD. When ANYONE walks with God the earth (earthly realm) and it’s god do shake.
It would be interesting to see someday how many times I explained those comments and how many times the explanations were ignored but the original comments pasted and re-pasted. This is one reason I have been often reluctant to answer some posters at some times. Why waste the time if it wont be listened to?
BTW, another reason (there are several) I often have postponed answering someone’s questions is to generate drama and command greater attention on the answer when I finally do answer. It’s a teaching device.... BUT I’M NOT TEACHING... honest! No, I’m just informing, and pointing out ideas, and informing.... but never teaching! That would be wrong... everyone knows THAT!
***
Now PLEASE count the number of times I just promoted God in this post without being pressed and reckon it to my account.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Genesis states that GOD created soul life in the animals. In PFAL, vpw stated that "soul" is what make "you you." Presumalbly that would be the same for the animals. God made the animals what and who they are. Adam's naming of them was supplemental to all the God did. I'm not going into this subject anymore until I've had some more time to look at it in depth - so I'm asking for an hiatus on it.
Now regarding Nicodemus...... according to pfal, Jesus ushered in the Christ administration. If you look carefully you will see that this has 2 elements to it
1. the fulfilling of the Law and accomplishing salvation
2. the preparation of the people who would live in the next administration
So, it only makes sense that Jesus would be the only one who could start and introduce that subject - since it would be his death and resurrection that wuld make the new birth possible. Only Jesus could point to the "so what's next" factor of redemption. After all, for centuries the Jewish people had waited for the Messiah, now that he had come - Now what?
I lean more towards the fact that being born of the seed of the serpent is not what vpw said it was. That it was not Satan's counterfiet of the new birth. ( and Yes, vpw said this many many many times in the Advanced class. - It might not have been written down - but if there are many eyewitnesses that have the same notes in their syllabi - then there you go -It was said! I'm not going to accept that all those people heard things wrong.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
You wrote: "Adam's naming of them was supplemental to all the God did."
I agree.
The same is true today when we train an animal, especially from birth. God set up the soul life base of the animal, and people can then train that soul.
When a soul-man is "worked on" by the adversary it may be like training an animal.
I'm not committed to these ideas, just trying to show dmiller that it CAN be worked. When I see an Apparent Contradiction (AC) I keep working it until it fits. With my method a declaration of an Actual Contradiction is never considered.
I don't think my idea violates what you said. God built the base, the soul, and Adam formed it's development. Ditto for a seedboy.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
Jesus received that revelation from the Father that a new birth was in the works. That means that the new birth was NOT a secret, and not part of the mystery. It fits in WITH the mystery, but it was not a secret itself.
Jesus marveled that Nicodemus did not know about the new birth, so that tells me that at least SOME of the new birth idea was in the OT so that Nicodemus should have known it.
If some of the new birth was in the OT and/or Jesus know about it before Pentecost then it was not a secret.
The adversary could counterfeit the seed idea from the OT setup of the idea, even before it happened.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
where is the adversary Mike?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
All I can say at this point is that I have wondered for awhile now IF there is (differn't) types of holy spirit.
i.e. the holy spirit that descended on Jesus being the same as OT holy spirit yet differn't to NT holy spirit ?
I know it says there is ONE spirit but I'm wondering if there could be (variation) of it ??
I think I need a coffee !!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
allan w,
In the back of RHST in Appendix II, is an outline of 9 major usages of "spirit" and some of those usages heve several more subdivisions.
We may need TWO cups of coffee each to read them all and then begin the task of mastering them.
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
CM,
Why do you ask?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
because you don't know Mike
if you don't know then you don't know what you are talking about
allan, there is only one spirit
the book rhst is wrong
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom Strange,
BTW, still another reason I sometimes dodge questions (using the biological “Ignore” feature) is because I must budget my time. I get hit with many, many questions, many more than most posters. Some questions are very insincere and downright insulting, like prosecutorial. I must prioritize my responses and sometimes that means ignoring them or brushing them off with equal prosecutorial zest.
It’s so odd that I was castigated so much for implementing the biological “Ignore” feature, yet when the electronic “Ignore” feature became available one of it’s first users was one of the staunches critics of my artistic and righteous dodging.
***
You wrote: “Mike, the reason I "have no use" for your essays is because you spend a lot of time typing a lot of words that end up going around in circles and never answering whatever questions were posed. If you ever got around to "straight answers" then maybe I'd be interested, but your history (since you're so keen on citing history) is that you don't ever answer, you dodge and avoid leading me (and others I think) to doubt the sincerity of your discourse.”
Some of your observations may have had a bias though. Yes there is a sadly rich history to our past interactions. I think I may be soon outlining that history’s origins before you registered here at GSC, but suffice it to say here that when you would show up on a thread I’d often halt my openness. Prior to your showing up I may have been in an open mood and you simply didn’t see it.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
CM,
You wrote: "there is only one spirit __ the book rhst is wrong"
Now THAT sounds like a topic for a whole thread. Why don't you start one and go through ALL the RHST "spirit" usages and show why they are wrong.
You might also want to include the basis for your theory of there being only one spirit and explain it in detail.
***
I'd be particularly interested in how you handle tiny little problems
in your theory like these carnal scriptures:
Romans 8:15
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear;
but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
mike
your lack of understanding does not motivate me
love does
you really want to know about the spirit
then you will have to live some of it
which includes hell where the adversary is
and you might be surprised who else is there
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I do want to live it like you, CM.
I guess that means I also will have to ignore Romans 8, like you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
i know mike ...i know....
soon enough it will find you
your accusation of me ignoring Romans 8
is a fools statement
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom Strange,
You wrote that the reason you ask about my more sensational statements is because they're statements I’ve “made that are so far beyond anything else anyone else has ever come up with...” and that you “...(and others) are interested in the basis of those statements...”
Ok, then if it’s genuine interest, and not a mere smear campaign, they you must sit tight for the whole essay’s worth of explanatory buildup.
***
You then wrote: “...but you never answer the questions about them... you only scold us for being so naive and not 'mastering' the material. That, coupled with your reluctance to 'stand by' your statements, leads me to think that you're afraid of them.”
But I did show that I answered some in recent posts here. The answers may have been delivered to other more polite posters and so more antagonistic challengers like you and your friends may have missed them.
BTW, I'm not forgetting that you've been civil to me lately, just recounting our history.
***
Speaking of sensational statememts, it looks like CM is giving me a run for the money on statements “...that are so far beyond anything else anyone else has ever come up with...”
CM just wrote:
"your lack of understanding does not motivate me
love does
you really want to know about the spirit
then you will have to live some of it
which includes hell where the adversary is
and you might be surprised who else is there"
Who do you think he saw in hell?
Abraham Lincoln? No, probably not.
The apostle Paul? No, probably not.
OH! The curiosity is getting to me.
Oh MY GOSH!
I hope CM wasn’t seeing this mystery man with foreknowledge
(known to be more powerful than Superman’s X-Ray Vision)
and that he saw ME there!!!
Oh NO! I’m doomed as doomed can be, ya know!
Oh BUT, what if Pat Sajak is there too?
Well then it might not be so bad.
Oh my! Isn’t this a quandary.
I'm going completely mental, I must say.
Which should I choose Pat in hell or CM on GreaseSpot?
They’re both fine fellows, ya know.
Oh Give me a break!
To be without Mr Sajak would certainly be a hell in itself,
but I wouldn’t want to offend Mr CM either, or is it neither?
Oh no, another quandry!
This is certainly NOT my lucky day.
But then again it could be if made the RIGHT choice!
But then if not I’m surely doomed as doomed can be.
What ever will I do?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom Strange,
You wrote: “...that's how you 'present' your posts to us... like "How dare we question what you're saying, it's God's Truth!" but you've not showed us the "why" or the "how" you got to that point, so therefore we question.”
I think you may be confusing my tone of voice with a tone you did often hear in the past from grumpy leadership. Instead of me feeling “How dare you question me and God!” I often have a feeling “How dare you use that bullying TWI technique on me!” and I feel that way only toward the very aggressive and impolite posters who come at me first.
People who disagree with me civilly I can totally accept and be civil back.
***
SOMETIMES I fight back with equal ferocity to demonstrate to non-participating readers that they too don’t have to take the antiPFAL rhetoric that’s been flying about for 20 years now.
I remember the days when JAL and Ralph D came to town in the late 80’s and early 90’s with their live version of the ferocious antiPFAL tones we often see here. In those meetings I saw some quiet proPFAL people rhetorically beat up LCM style by some of the participants. I think the meek and intimidated proPFAL people out there need to see someone stand up to the bullying techniques so despised by many posters here, but so heavily and hypocritically used by the same posters without compunction by antiPFAL people here.
Certainly the old leadership that claims to support watered down and re-written “PFAL principles” are incapable and/or unwilling to set the example of standing up to tough talk like that, so I volunteer for the job.
***
I had written: “What’s the matter with someone speaking God's Truth? Are you of the opinion that no one can do that? Do you believe in the 9 manifestations? Do you believe in God? just where are YOU coming from, Tom.”
You retorted with: “There you go putting words in my mouth again Mike. I didn't say that or allude to that. This would be a good example of your 'essay method' mentioned above. Pulling something out of thin air.”
I had written: “If you are going to warn readers about me, shouldn’t you be open and honest about your beliefs? What do you believe? Who is your God?”
And again you retorted with: “If you think that by my letting folks know 'where you're coming from' is "warning them" doesn't that speak to a little bit of paranoia on your part? ...or maybe that you really are trying to mislead folks?”
See, you sidesteped the issue with an insult of paranoia, just like I’m often accused of doing.
If you’re going to be an “informer” as you admitted, then I think the people you inform should know where YOU are coming from? ...or maybe YOU are really trying to mislead folks!”
Maybe YOU ought to promote God (as well as WHICH one) a little as you inform, just like you accused me of being deficient in.
***
“I'll ask you for about the five millionth time... "How is it 'discrediting' you if I'm just asking you about statements that you've made?”
By selectivity. News organizations can slant things by what they choose NOT to report.
If you select to report someone’s punch line to a long involved joke, but omit the buildup, doesn’t that rob the joke of it’s humor? And in some cases couldn’t that even possibly slander the teller of the joke?
It works for serious stuff too. You can select a dramatic punch line of mine and omit the buildup, thereby making me look kooky.
The very fact that none of you guys saved the locations nor the contexts of my statements is telling.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike, please don't feel like you have to respond to my every comment and/or observation. Read them (if you like), use them or ignore them. Of course, if you'd like to respond to everything that's your choice. The things I seek answers from you about I think I ask pretty clearly.
Your general "tone" has been much better these last few pages, the venom in your typing has crept out with far less frequency. To civilly "discuss" with folks doesn't mean that you have to agree with them. Please try to remember not to attack folks just because they have a different view than you.
I have no clue what you're talking about here other than I'm quite sure that I'm not the first poster that you've had "trouble" with. You really could save yourself some time and not bother with the 'outlining the past' and concentrate on how you interact with the folks in the 'present'.
oh... and I think that asking someone "don't you think you're being a little paranoid" is hardly an insult. Please quit trying to drag me into things or compare my posting style to yours. We're different people. My interactions with you have always been of the "how dare you treat these people that way" nature or the "how in the heck did you come up with that" nature.
And if you think those statements of yours I posted were all I'm wondering about... there's much more that I would like to know the how's and why's of... but we'll just see how it goes... enjoy the rain... send some this way...
...oh... and I've never done the cut and paste about the "earth shaking"... you posted that stuff before I ever got here...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom Strange,
I’m very thankful for this most recent post of yours.
You’re a civil man. :)
***
I will look over some of the things in my hopper and start cutting things out.
It has been a bit dicey for me to deal with old matters (when things were much hotter) and not rekindle the flames. I’m also thankful that you were able to tolerate my recent handling of these older edgy matters.
Some things may be useful to still post on to for the benefit of others, but I will cut that to a minimum. The “earth shaking” pasteups were probably WW’s doing, and I thought could they use some explanation. I sometimes forget who is who in the heat of battle, mostly looking at the wordplay only. Plus there've been so many. I'm sorry I blamed you for that.
I don’t blame you for having been extremely curious about some of the statements I made. Some of them I made to deliberately stimulate curiosity, yet remain honest. It’s my heart’s desire to sometime, even soon, get to explain them here.
***
I admit I have been rough at times, but I always TRY to only resort to that after I’ve been hit hard, and often only after multiple hits. There are times when I have made mistakes in this effort to only return punches after being hit.
Last September, on a TWI guy’s website this happened. This was the guy who was only doing the board to collect statistics for a school project and his site only lasted a few weeks.
In a typical many-poster mêlée there I had swung hard at a poster named Jim, who I believe posts here too.
I had said to all there: “I asked Jim on the previous page to produce for me an authoritative source for learning God's Word and will ...something infallible that we can stand on and never budge ...something we never have to back off from, like Dr prayed for in 1942. __ Jim was quick on the draw to cast doubts on Dr's material as being from God, yet HE backed off when I challenged him to produce something better. That's the pattern of all those grads seduced by the dark force: tear down, but never build back up. It's easy to tear down, and grads are seduced into thinking they are doing God a favor in doing such destruction, kind of like how Saul of Tarsus did, but they never can build back up anything like what God and Dr built in the PFAL writings.”
Jim eventually wrote back: “I didn't really back down, I just had to clean the garage today instead of sitting in front of the computer...”
I went back to the record and saw that my harshness was uncalled for in his case, and wrote (with these same colored fonts) this apology:
“I will give you more time to answer. I apologize if I was too hasty. I do look forward to your answers. __ If I was unnecessarily tough on you in any other way, please observe that I am under constant attack from many who wish me ill will. This has been going on for years. When you enter a bar room fight, it's kind of normal for punches to be thrown in the wrong directions at times. The military calls it "collateral damage" and it must be accepted as part of the job. __ Since I don't know you yet, I'll try to pull my punches in your vicinity unless I see you seriously swing at me.”
***
I know that this same thing has happened here on occasion, and when I became aware of it I did my best to apologize to the few I was rough on without cause. In the confusion it happens. One summer I was in daily battle with 74 posters, many simultaneously. I didn’t do the counting; some other poster did. It can get confusing.
I remember hearing from CoolWaters long ago that I brought one woman poster to tears once. I THINK I found out who she was and apologized. My memory is fuzzy here, and if I failed to find her and apologize I want to and will.
If there are any posters here who feel I did this to them I want to issue a general apology now, and if they show me the location or help me find the location in my files with a few keywords I’ll post a more specific apology.
***
Just a short re-cap of my history before you registered here, Tom, may help you see why I can get pretty feisty. I was literally dragged onto GreaseSpot by two posters who splashed my private e-mails to them on the board. I was not a registered member then, just a lurker. There were two threads about me, and they contained MANY of my e-mails pasted in word-for-word in their entirety. No one expressed the thought that it was unethical, not one. It lasted for about a month. I was lurking and patiently waited for the storm to die down. In that storm I was insulted and maligned in a hideous way. If it were to happen to any other poster here there would be fireworks and all sorts of complaints.
I waited about three months for things to die down and started quietly and politely posting my message. I prefaced it by saying I had some extreme views. I went slowly to lay out my message quietly. Within days of my posting I was fingered as the weird guy who was the subject of those two denouncing threads. Then the pile-on started. But I was ready and fought back hard. Many posters here, I strongly suspect, had never in ten or more years encountered any resistance to their PFAL bashing. I think they needed to be shown strong resistance so I fought hard.
That pile-on has gradually ended, but only very gradually, and I’ve been a fighting Irishman all this time with those who want to fight me. I think I’ve done a good job of forcing them to consider that their antiPFAL opinions are only just that, opinions, and that they were poorly thought through opinions in many instances.
If I don’t convince many people here to accept my opinions, at least I get them to re-think their own.
***
I would love to get into more of the statements of mine that you found odd, quickly, outrageous, and/or crazy. It’s all a matter of time and set-up. Maybe we can get into the Return of Christ, but we need to start at the beginning and go slow.
How about that one on PFAL helping us to defy death? That would be easier. I’m open to suggestions.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Me in bold... various snips to the post above:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mike -- think that statement through for a moment.
How are you gonna counterfeit a dollar bill, if it hasn't been invented yet?? ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
Here's how:
From the Treasury Department's announcements of the soon to be issued bills, and from past similar patterns.
The counterfeit won't be perfect, but it doesn't have to be to be a counterfeit. All it needs to be is passable, and if the counterfeiters have a strong grip on the entire population (like the adversary does), then even a sloppy copy can be forced fit on the population. (Remember, this is an analogy, so it’s bound to get stretched thin.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites