So_crates

As always you forget the one caveat: He will go with us as far as we are willing to go, IF we repent, as in change our act. The whole idea of God favoring a person refusing to repent is full of trapdoors. God doesn't bless people who don't repent. How do I know? If God is going to shower blessings on an alcoholic rake, who made it his life's mission to see how many commandments he could break, the why should I follow the bible? Why don't I follow Saint Vic's example and let grace abound for me? After all, God is no respecter of persons, right? Ridiculous isn't it? So why isn't it ridiculous to believe God would rewrite every law in the universe to accommodate Saint Vic?

That's your sales pitch isn't it? Way and Weirwille all the time. Maybe not physically, but you think you are verbally, as your words attest. Didn't come out that hulky, in your opinion. There was a lot of emotions in your words s lot of anger. What would I do? Probably palm it off as a joke back at them like: "And you're trying to make a point by trying to ruffle my feathers? Try harder!" Really. You snap at someone who repeats a meme and you claim I misread you? Do that and I'll call Johnny Jump up and Maggie Muggins.

So when you're confronted with the ministry philosophy you claim to enspouse, you get cheesed off and turn into the incredible hulk, huh? I see you think it's okay for you to reprove others, but heaven help those that reprove you. A better term? How about: "I'll make the effort*?

You know the typical ministry response? It's your believing. If you believe people are out to get you then they are. There's also the factor that I don't go into the opposite political party's forums and start espousing my ideals and expect them to want to ask questions and say "Please tell us more." It isn't a rabbit hole, it's as real as you being here is real. Do you? I'm sure you give lip service, but your words say otherwise. The solution is to not allow yourself to be duped again. Didn't the ministry say trying is a half heart attempt with the foreknowledge of failure? I prefer Yoda: "No try. Do. No do." Yes I did?

Don't forget being the rescuer. That's the third leg of the drama triangle. If you're one, you're probably all three.

I have thought it through. After all, you are whining that we should be paying attention to the positives and ignore the negatives. You know why people tell you to be positive? Because being positive makes you a sucker. Being positive will allow you to snarf down Saint Vic's bull like pot brownies. Then by the time you realize you've been had, it's too late. Now, YOU think that through for a minute. Oh really? Tell me, what do I see here? Sometime back, I went to a local bar. As the live music played on, a Mormon chose to witness to me. I asked him several questions, which he promptly ignore and continued spouting his doctrine. You see he wasn't interested in me as a person at all. He wanted somebody to teach, to lord over, as that's how most people see the teacher-student relationship. Say, didn't you once say you wanted to teach people here and when I asked you if you were willing to learn you said no? You see, when I taught people about computers, I learned as much from them as they did from me. That's the correct student-teacher dynamic. So what do I get when I communicate with you? Questions you refuse to answer, accusations that people are trying to trip you up, and somehow, you have the time to write a doctrinal piece half a page long,but you never have enough time to answer questions on a previous post. All contributing to the sense you're attempting to hide something.

Interesting choice of metaphors. Your whining about my pole sized splinter, yet you ignore your planet sized beam, the evil man Saint Vic really was. As Jesus encourages us, remove your beam before you complain about my splinter. You mean we can set others up to be duped again. After all, IN PRIVATE others are not made aware of the seething evil, are they? It's also odd how you missed the part about learning our lessons from them, isn't it? Translation: Let's ignore all the evil Saint Vic has done and only focus on what I want to focus on. So your whole present schtick boils down to: other than that, did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln? Like I said, you don't want to deal with what an evil man Saint Vic was, instead let's gloss over that and put faith in the word salad he spewed. Those that don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Is this your actual goal? You mean you prioritize things to delude you into ignoring the elephant in the room. You claim Saint Vic got a lot of grace from God, even though Paul encouraged us not to continue in sin that grace may abound. You'd think if God were going to roll out a bibical revision he would have chosen a better representative that someone who would use His Word to line the bottom of a bird cage.

How is bring a logical fallacy to your attention derailing a thread?

I thought you were already in make up and costume. Like I said, you're already in make up and costume. Always beware the person proclaiming, "We have to forget the negatives and focus on the positives." Usually, that person is setting you up to be duped again. What great positives? "Life principles" that waste your youth because they don't work? A drunken liar who bent the bible so he could lord over people? People who expected you to follow Evey letter of the bible, yet broke it themselves without a second thought? There's a surprise, I would have made the same claim about you. And how do you figure things will be more balanced by leaning everything to your side?

Translation: I want it my way and anything else you Greasespotters have to add isn't even worth considering.

So tell me, Mike, as per your previous statement, what are you focused on? Hint: it's in front of, I mean, above your nose. (That's a hint.)

If Mike were female, I'd say he was alpha widowed, he found that one man that he measures everyone by, yet nobody can meet up to that measurement.

Which is why I refered him to Roman 6:1. Yes, I do. I just stated it that way to save typing.

Nice to see some things never change. I see Mike is trying to compare St. Vic to the apostle Paul. The first question I'd ask would be, did Paul change after the road to Damascus? Or did he continue killing Christians? Did St. Vic change after the snow on the gas pumps event? As far as asking for forgiveness and grace, I see Mike has forgotten Romans 6:1: What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? Paul's answer: God forbid!

Another time, back in my university days, a grad student and I were discussing postmodernism. It was her assertation that there was no reality, only perceptions. "No reality, only perceptions," I repeated. "So if there are only perceptions, I go into a class and do what I percieve is "A" work, but you claim its "D" work. What makes one perception more valid than the other?" "The one with the authority," she responded. "But if all you have is perception, then authority too must be a perception." She just kind of shook and walked away. There is something out there, beyond my skin, that is more than my perception. Newton percieved the apple, but something moved the apple seperate from Newton. E=MC squared is a phenomenon that exists whether we percive it or not

For me proof is an objective thing. As with most scientific thought one of the elements of proof is predictability. How do we know two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen make water? It's been done billions of times and will be done billions more. How do we know gravity exists? Apples fell before Newton and they continue to fall to this day. That's why cold fusion fell flat. The scientists say they created it once, but nobody could replicate their experiment. (My theory: The original scientists unknowingly used a dirty test tube and whatever was in that test tube before served as a catalyst that helped create cold fusion. Nobody knows what dirtied the test tube so we'll never know what the catalyst was.)

I'm always leery of all encompassing statements. Back in my university days, an astronomy TA tried to tell me you can't really know anything. My response: "If we can't really know anything, how do you know we can't really know anything?" Same difference with your quote above: If we can't prove anything, then we can't prove we can't prove anything, which opens the possibility things can be proven. (Still there?) Science is actually based on proof. Oh, there are theories, but theories have to sooner or later be proven. And not just once. Again and again.

Or, as they used to say at the university: You spend four years in to the School of Engineering learning to ask the question, How can we make it? You spend four years in the School of Management learning to ask the question, What will it cost? And you spend four years in the School of Liberal Arts learning to ask the question, You want fries with that order?

Which disqualifies him from making any value judgements about Saint Vic or his work. Would we trust the ruling of a judge or jury that said, at a trial, never mind the details of the crime, just tell me about the times the defendant was an upstanding citizen. What Mike fails to understand is that if he continues to push his Weirwille over the World agenda, he going to constantly be confronted with Saint Vic's sexual indiscretions. When Saint Vic started information wasn't a few mouse clicks away. Now, a few keystrokes and anyone can find out everything they would care to know about Saint Vic, The Way, or PLAF in lurid detail. So this will be a subject Mike will be vistiting again and again. Tell possible converts you have personal issues and that prevents you from making good value judgements about Saint Vic and the potential converts will tell you "okay" and go join the Church of Latter Day Smurfs or something. After spending 20 years trying to find a way around the stealing others work and bearing false witness issue, you would think Mike would have better answers. A few post back, Mike said: In war (which this was) the rules of man can be thrown away. Abraham Lincoln did it. Read the bible much? We've been a war since before Eden (part of the reason the snake tempted Eve). Were there abysmal men of the cloth before? I imagine so. The Scribes and Pharisees, who, though they held everybody to The Law, thought they were above The Law (sound familiar? Paging Saint Vic!) Paul, in Timothy, talks of the great falling away. How does Saint Vic's moment in the war differ from the rest of human history? Once again, you try to claim plagiarism is man's law. It's not. Not only does God tell us not to steal, He also tell us not to bear false witness (in this case, Saint Vic claiming he did something he didn't do, the textbook definition of plagiarism.). So it was God's law that was broken. Isn't amazing how God, in his foreknowledge saw there was going to be a plagiarism issue and he put those commandments in the bible to solve it once and for all?

I understand: it must be pretty frustrating to repeatedly present the same old, tired argument you've been pedaling for 17 years just have someone else answer with the same rebuttal that disproves the argument. For example, about 20-50 posts back, you made the claim God gave Saint Vic permission to steal others work. I asked how you know God gave Saint Vic permission. You said you didn't have time to explain. However, you've had time to continue writing other posts. Then there's the claim, also pretty far back, God won when Saint Vic got away with stealing others works. I asked you if God won when Saint Vic got away with forcing himself on ministry women. Again, you refused to answer. As I said before, you want less topics, don't have so many illogical fallicies. However, this one has only one topic, Your claim of God's view and man's view is flawed because you deny the black or white view of God: stealing is stealing. Period. Yah, I know, you have no time. You sure it's not because my bearing false witness argument pokes a huge hole in your not-plagerism-because-God-owns-everything argument and you feel the need for some damage control? So we agree. Again we agree. So when God said, Thou shall not steal he meant thou shall not steal anything. Not a grape, not the church poor box, not someone elses work. And the same applies to Saint Vic: Paul, tells us not to steal: not a grape, not from the chuch poor box, not someone elses work. So, as you've just admitted, if there's no grey area, Saint Vic stole from both man and God's viewpoint No, your the one mearging two concepts: You just claimed God's viewpoint is absolute as I said, yet you claim that even with this absolute-black or white viewpoint--God didn't see Saint Vic as stealing when he stole other's works.. So your saying stealing has nothing to do with being in fellowship or not, right? Again, your attempting to set yourself as the standard. I don't care what you think, I care what God thinks. God says do not steal and as you've admitted above he means do not steal anything, not a grape, not from the church poor box. not someone elses work. God also says do not bear false witness (take credit for something you didn't do), which is the textbook definition of plagerism. So your saying God has nothing about bearing false witness to your neighbor (taking credit for something you didn't do, which is the textbook definition of plagerism)? Isn't it amazing that God, in His foreknowledge, knew a question about plagerism would come up so He put that commandment in there to address it? If the truth were so flimsy, that would have been obvious immediately and you would not have wasted over 40 years trying to find a way around it, as you admitted a few lines back. Nor would this thread have ran for near 20 pages, if the truth were so flimsy. For example, look at all the responses to the gossimer reason your presenting.

I find it interesting that you use the two views argument here, yet you fail to follow through on it. Yes, there's God's view and man's view. God's view is absolute, black or white (your either in fellowship or your not; you either obeyed Him or you didn't; something was either stolen or it wasn't) is necessary because those same rationalization we use to fudge our obedience to God, Christ could have used to fudge his obedience to The Law. If Christ didn't obey The Law, then we have no savior. If rationalizations were acceptable to God, then Christ could have stolen the temple poor box and proclaimed: "This money belongs to my father, I am his son, so it's not really stealing." Silly isn't it. But that's what you get when Man tries to impose shades of grey on God's black or white absolution. God's view is absolute; while man makes rationalizations. One such rationalization is stealing is okay is some contexts, but not in others. Not only does God and Paul tell us not to steal, God also tells us not to bear false witness (in this instance taking credit for something you didn't do). We are also commanded to obey the laws of men, like theft and plagerism. The only time we can disobey the laws of men is when the run contrary to the laws of God, for example, if there were laws against praying or attending church. We've discussed this at length before, but somehow you either don't read my posts or you refuse to see anything but your viewpoint.

Once again, your intellectual dishonesty is on display; The following is a copy of my original post: Your answer: As you can see, you gave an answer to question I didn't ask. Now would you like to answer the other part of may post (Are they God winning, as you claim with Saint Vic getting away with stealing others works)? Also, the problem with plagerism is that it's deceitful, bearing false witness (taking credit for something you didn't do). This begs the question: Would a loving God send one of his spokesmen to intentionally decieve His people? And what is the bibical presidence for that.

So your contention is that because Saint Vic got away with stealing others works, God's hand was in it. Really? Your argument falls apart in more instances than I care to count. Here are a few: Saint Vic also got away with forcing himself on how many women? Was that God winning too? Jack the Ripper got away with murdering how many prostitutes? Was that God winning too? Hitler got away with the systematic slaughter of how many Jews? Was this God winning too? Stalin got away with killing how many Russians? Was that God winning too? All four follow your law broken and they got away with it rationalization.

The above is another question you apparently didn't have time to answer. As it's the crux of your argument, one would think you would make time to answer it. So, once again, how do you know God gave Saint Vic permission to steal other people's work?