Leaderboard

"I like learning," in this statement IS evasion. The context is discussion, debate. If you really did like to learn, learn about how to productively conduct yourself in discussions and debates. Your understood expectation is to try to get people to see your side of things. You're not getting the job done. You consistently put more energy and effort into avoiding getting the job done... at least as it pertains to what you post at GSC.

Good, concise, example of something very complex, Rocky (or trivial, Mike). Mike, could you have a go at presenting your "thesis" in such concise terminology? It's only about half a dozen lines. Shouldn't be too difficult for such a knowledgeable Professor of PFAL such as yourself.

There are good reasons to evade, if you fear capture and interrogation. If you are dealing with an enemy. If you believe you are dealing with such here, you have only yourself to blame. No-one sees you as an enemy - a fool, misguided, in your own little world, maybe - but enemy? no. So you see your "thesis" as a campaign, do you? Hmph. A politician on a re-election campaign doesn't make progress by evasion; rather, he annoys the electorate so much that he isn't likely to be re-elected. If you think there is something in your personal life that you'd like to share (with me) you can PM me. Do not require me to PM you. Generally speaking, I will say what I have to say openly. I disclosed some very personal information to you in an effort to show you that it can be done. Your response? Ignored me completely. Others' response? No comment, as it wasn't directed at them. I also showed you some ways my beliefs and doctrines impact my own life (again to encourage you). But you? You appear too unwilling to demonstrate "the application of doctrine to my personal life" - I asked you for ONE THING that had benefited you. And you cannot even demonstrate that. As for your comment, "If you ever conduct a campaign trying to transmit a large body of complex data" can I remind you that as a lawyer I am used to both assimilating a lot of complex data on specialist matters, and asking relevant questions to clarify what I don't understand; Thereafter, I'm extremely capable of presenting that to non-tech person(s). In fact, as a lawyer I considered myself a sort of interpreter for lay clients when it comes to understanding complex legal matters. Clients like my clear and cogent explanations. And they like the way I show them precisely how that applies in their own lives, cases, matters. Now it's your turn to explain why you cannot explain even a simple matter, simply, and show how it works in practice.

Confirmation lined up very nicely with bias. "It's axiomatic."

So, what, exactly, lined up "very nicely" with what?

Psalm 116:8-12 KJV "8 For thou hast delivered my soul from death, mine eyes from tears, and my feet from falling. 9 I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living. 10 I believed, therefore have I spoken: I was greatly afflicted: 11 I said in my haste, All men are liars. 12 What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits toward me?" Psalm 116:8-12 NASB "For You have rescued my soul from death, My eyes from tears, My feet from stumbling. 9 I shall walk before the Lord In the [e]land of the living. 10 I believed when I said, “I am greatly afflicted.” 11 I said in my alarm, “All men are liars.” 12 What shall I render to the Lord For all His benefits [f]toward me?" Psalm 116:8-12 CEV "You, Lord, have saved my life from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling. 9 Now I will walk at your side in this land of the living. 10 I was faithful to you when I was suffering, 11 though in my confusion I said, “I can’t trust anyone!” 12 What must I give you, Lord, for being so good to me?" =================================== When vpw/twi bases a docrrine on EXACTLY ONE VERSE (or less), I'm highly suspicious it may have meant nothing of the kind. I see no reason to think this verse is outlining a rule that says "All men are liars." Looks to me like that was the state of mind of the psalmist at the moment he said that, whether true or not.

Literally dragged here? That's like saying you were mugged by mail. It takes two to tango. Don't you think the honest thing to do would be to take responsibility for your part of it?

On the contrary, as everyone traces back to Adam and Eve, Jesus Christ was of Adam's bloodline--through his mother, Mary. Mary, was of Adam's bloodline. But he was of Mary, who was of the man, Adam. I still haven't had anyone explain to me how eating of a forbidden tree implies transfer of ownership.

Mike, I hate to tell you this when you are clearly so "right," but Jesus isn't described as being "the second Adam" but "the last Adam." There's actually quite a difference in meaning and intent. If you happen to have a Bible, you can read about it in 1 Cor 15:45. No idea (and don't care) how it might be described in PFAL.

Well, this thread has wandered off point somewhat. This was the point: I'm seeing lots of defensiveness from Mike, but nothing about empathy or understanding about the hurt caused by TWI. And nothing of any personal growth by Mike. Knock it off, folks. Let Mike slink back into the woodwork, as he (says he) wishes to do. He might then find time to ponder just a little on what he's too busy defending himself against. But I'm guessing that this thread will meander on for another dozen pages, with Mike continuing to offer provocative comments and not empathetic ones.

RG, I thought Mike gave a Bullsheet answer, and it didn't work for me.

Thank you, RottieGirl. What I answered was pretty much straight from Paul's epistles. Some of the terminology I used is PFAL, but the verses line up very nicely. I'll bet thousands of churches answer it the same way I did. Addendum - the same word is used for "man" and for "Adam."

It just occurred to me that the organization's practices with regard to doing good things for people in need stands in violation/contrast to its proclaimed belief in "giving = receiving." If the organization truly believed that axiom, perhaps over the last several decades it wouldn't have been quite so tightfisted about helping the unfortunate.

That was the thing. There were genuine Christians doing things, young and naive. vpw went and convinced them he was some great one and turned them into his recruiting arm. After that, he expected them to be his property for life. Otherwise, he'd have expected they'd all have to take care of their families as time passed (it's in the Bible, folks!) His absence of such thinking indicated he expected them to subordinate their entire lives to twi and whatever he wanted.