waysider

I fixed that for you.

You have to understand, T-Bone, these scientists were top polygraph experts.

You mean THIS guy? You sure know how to pick 'em, that's for sure.

You put yourself in the box , Mike, when you make unsubstantiated, outlandish claims. If you want to stick to the issues, you only need to address them honestly, in a logical fashion.

I tried to hit "like" multiple times but it won't let me.

Go Fish!

Hahaha! Just kidding. The idea that someone would confuse the lock-box with personal confidence is beyond absurd. It's obscene.

Hey, Mike, did you know "lock-box" comes from an old Aramaic phrase that can be literally translated "sweep it under the carpet."? Don't tell anyone, though, it'll just be our own little secret

Just an IMHO here: I believe Wierwille's "all sins are equal" was really a preemptive ploy on his part to silence any dissidents . It certainly explains the lock-box and "not thinking evil of your brothers and sisters in Christ"...like a "You're just as guilty as me." sort of thing.

In PFAL, VPW presented the following course of logic: "Life of the flesh is in the blood"...Leviticus 1. This component is supplied by the male via the sperm. (In the case of divine conception, supplied by God) 2. Blood does not cross the placenta. (Preventing contamination by Mary's human blood) Thus, Christ's blood was pure, as it represented only the divine component. Well, that all sounds very concise and neatly packaged. The problem, though, is that it is grossly incorrect on both counts. *Blood is composed of components supplied by both the male and female. *Blood can, in fact, in certain circumstances, cross the placenta.

Mike, this is simply your opinion. If it's "true", as you say, please provide some documentation to that effect.

Are you your own grandpa now? Yeah, I can answer a question with a question, too. How about that? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now back to the point. You made this claim. "...very few profound, significant thing can ever be proved. Most proofs are of small and/or relatively insignificant things." Now use some sound logic to demonstrate its accuracy. Otherwise, you're simply showing me you lack the necessary skills to present a valid argument. edit. By the way, it's not a *thesis*. It's an opinion.

No. You simply sidestepped your responsibility to provide proof of your claim. The ball is still in your court.

You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

Like this right here. This may be your opinion... but I doubt you'll find much evidence to support its veracity.

They're only battles if you make them battles, Mike. Otherwise, they're discussions. A good way to keep a discussion from escalating into a battle is to follow the accepted conventions of discussion. By that I mean learning to argue your point without resorting to flawed logic and reason, recognizing and avoiding such things as false dilemmas, false equivalence, appeals to authority, strawman arguments, sunken cost thinking and so on. If you can develop some level of proficiency with that approach, you might just find your audience to be more receptive and less adversarial. It's definitely an evolutionary process but well worth the effort.

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

Straight out of PFAL. (It must be true.)

No. HERE

I posted a link.

I think you missed the point, Mike. You're assuming the post was directed at you.

Maybe this would be a good time to revisit the Concorde fallacy.

Thank you for paraphrasing session #5. "Stand! ...and don't budge." If you think that concept is God Breathed, you might want to take a second look at what you're standing in.

If I'm honest with myself, it was initially a case of "date & switch".

How do you fix cognitive dissonance? I have no idea.