So_crates

Not at all. So your theory is shot. I didn't find him impressive. Nor did I have any desire to be like him. Nor did I ever imitate him. People would often talk of his charisma and I'd always think to myself, What charisma? So you say. I can think of good things Saint Vic's done. Can you tell me an evil thing he's done? The hero worship/pure good model in action.

From what I've seen the only time you want to apply it at all is when you want to accuse people here at the forum of using YOUR Pure Evil model. How do you know they're not talking of Saint Vic's evil using your checkerboard model? That is, when Saint Vic was out of fellowship (which was most of the time)? Refresh my memory, what were you saying a few post ago about thinking evil about members of the household? So what your telling us here is that your unqualified to make a judgement on whether GSers are right or not about Saint Vic. Your also telling me that you want to play ostrich and stick your head in the sand. Ignoring facts doesn't make them go away. So, why don't you read LOSING THE WAY, read ADULTRY AND SOUL STEALING Then come back and tell me about Saint Vic. It's just a suggestion... In other words: don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up. And your speaking for all the grads? On what authority? How about we ask them what they think? Grads, tell me this isn't how evil works: From Dot Matrix on 2/3/2003 at 2:07 PM:

No, that's what you claim Saint Vic said. There a difference. Between you claim and your proposed fact you have yet offered any proof. There seems to be a little too much reading between the lines for me to accept your claim.

You mean like your Pure Evil model of humanity? The one that, even though Saint Vic is a part of humanity, you hero worship of him manages to allow him to escape the same Pure Evil model everyone else gets? Second, what happened to that lockbox lecture you gave us a few posts back that said not to think evil of members of the household?

You probably gave away more information about yourself then you wanted to when you thought the purpose of the proofs I outlined were to win arguments. First, of they can be used in that type of arguing, but it wasn't my intent. My intent was to give you the build blocks for presenting your case. They can be strung together in any order. The elements also don't have to be how they're laid out on the cheat sheet. They can be positive or negative or any combination as long as the form is retained. The only reason I used negatives is to prove to you that it is possible to prove a negative. I'm afraid winning an argument takes a little more than mons ponens or mons tollens.

So confession of belief yeilds recieving confession is false? Confess with your mouth and believe with your heart is false? And what did you confess with your mouth? I have asked for examples of tight proofs. I suspect they don’t exist.

Another term for symbolic logic is prepositional calculus. Among its many uses is constructing arguments and checking their validity and soundness. You don't get much tighter than the proofs in my above quote. However, guess what? If you doubt tight proof exist, you'll never find them. Why? What did PLAF claim about negative believing? Also, your one of those people that has a tendancy to refuse to see anything outside of your opinions. You want everyone to validate your reality, yet you refuse to validate theirs.

While the can't prove a negative myth gives fuel to the reason for our legal system, it isn't true--you can prove a negative. How? Well, you can prove you didn't commit a crime by proving you were somewhere else other than the crime scene. Other ways in symbolic logic include: If A then not B A Therefore not B If not A then B B Therefore not A A or not B Not A Therefore not B A and not B A Therefore not B AND negating a negation creates a positive, i.e, Not not A=A

You can be upset with people, if you choose. But remember: if you don't fill in blanks people will fill in the blanks for you.

Your reaping what you sowed. How much honesty and trust have you shown us? So are you really suprised your getting a lack of trust in return?

I must say Saint Vic taught you well. You want to lecture, but when it comes to you following what your lecturing others to do, you go by the don't do as I do, do as I say motto. Does this include accusing others of using pure evil models? Does this include accusing others of trying to trick you? Does this include accusing others of judging you? Perhaps you should work on becoming a worthy example before lecturing us.

Yes you are. You wrote: Humans are usually complicated and can imitate good for a while, but the nature is evil. Another way of writing the above sentence is Human nature is evil, but it can fake being good. Or Human nature is pure evil, but occassionally fakes good. Got it? If humanity is by nature pure evil, then Saint Vic, being part of humanity, is also pure evil. The only was he could escape not being pure evil in your humanity is pure evil model is to not be human. That's not what the above sentence says. Backing up the evil nature quote above is another quote of yours: Some actions can be nice… for a while, but the human heart is rotten and it eventually reigns in human affairs. So does the above quote hold to Saint Vic, too? Were some of his actions nice for awhile, but his rotten human heart eventually reigned (your word, not mine) in his affairs. Show me in the above sentence where it says in fellowship or out of fellowship. Pure evil is pure evil. "Soup is soup, apple butter is apple butter..." Pure evil is pure evil. Got it? Would you accept it if I said Saint Vic was pure evil, but the checkerboard style? Second, all those people your accusing of using the Pure Evil model, how do you know they're not meaning checkerboard style?

My original comments in black Mile's response in purple My response in red So were you running on Waybrain autopilot when you wrote this? No, not Waybrian. I liken that to the TVTs (Twi Verbal Traditions) we had in circulation back then. For 20 years now I’ve been moving away from both by moving toward the written material. What happened to the humans are complex creatures, they can do good and bad schtick? Humans are usually complicated and can imitate good for a while, but the nature is evil. That's not what you said on another thread. You said himans were complex and capable of doing evil and good at the same time. I find it amazing that you have no problem with the everybody else is pure evil, but Saint Vic isn't. Were Saint Vic's actions nice...for awhile, then his rotten heart reigned his affairs? You have no trouble telling everyone how rotten the human heart is, yet when you see that corruption in Saint Vic you have a million excuses. No excuses. We can rest in peace knowing in the long run God will repay. What a person earns is what they will eventually receive. I do not look at VPW as having “gotten away” with anything. He may be stuck with a lot less rewards than some grad who ministered love in life. Not what I asked. I asked if his actions were nice for awhile..but then his evil nature, as you claim with the rest of us, reigned. I don’t know and don’t have to judge. Odd, you have no trouble judging the rest of us, but when it comes to Saint Vic... If I were working at HQ and saw something, then I’d have a decision to make. That never happened. My big decisions in this category were connected with how well I could see PFAL line up with the KJV and whatever deeper research I was capable of. It fits; it works; for me. You used the word “reigned” above. I used the word reigned because that's the word you used. I don’t think that quite lines up with the 24/7 cycle at HQ and on the field. There may have been a few times and places where that happened for a short duration, but I think “reigned” is an exaggeration. It's the word you used, so you exaggerated? I think that’s a part of the Pure Evil model creeping in and taking over. And here's further proof of your hero worship: You have no problem with the pure evil model of humanity, but the pure evil model of your hero, who's a part of humanity, is wrong.

So were you running on Waybrain autopilot when you wrote this? What happened to the humans are complex creatures, they can do good and bad schtick? Were Saint Vic's actions nice...for awhile, then his rotten heart reigned his affairs? You have no trouble telling everyone how rotten the human heart is, yet when you see that corruption in Saint Vic you have a million excuses.

So in a veiled discussion of the person, you don't want to discuss the person? Do you read what you type? Or do you fade in and out?

And what's that say about what the person thinks about you that they would hand you a sirloin steak like you described? Would you call him a loving father? As Saint Vic, himself, said in PLAF: "If that's so with your biological father, how much more your spiritual father?"

The whole "owned" thing points out another hole in Saint Vic's "logically logical" presentation. Initial research points to the relationship to husbands/fathers to wives and children is similar to that of a master and slave. Wives and children in bibical times were considered no more than property. https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015/07/10/does-the-bible-teach-the-concept-of-human-property/ Now, as we were of the world, we were bought with a price, Jesus Christ. So, Adam and Eve were given the Garden of Eden, they in return, according to Saint Vic, transfered the property to the devil. So, as God had to pay a price to get us back, what price did the devil have to pay to get us in the first place?

Like a rationalization for a rationalization is a rationalization itself? Even Godel's Theorem had to be proven Paragraph Two of this article starts the proof https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-godels-theorem/

But usually the child is owned by both parents, so he was also owned by Mary, who was Adam's progeny. So your explanation falls flat. You said it wouldn't satisfy me and I'm here to please. (By the way, that's called negative believing) You know, in PLAF, Saint Vic said there was nothing wrong with being stupid. The problem is when you choose to be ignorant. The difference? Stupid means you don't know. Ignorant means you know but choose to ignore it. Now, when you take someone who honestly doesn't know something and you chide him with how easy it is and then you leave gaping holes in your explanation, you make yourself look bad. It apparently isn't as easy as you claim, since you don't understand "owned" All the other stuff, the we're all evil, the red text, is irrelevent and just stuff thrown in to cloud the issue. The fact that Saint Vic left out any info on owned tells me he was trying to pull a fast one. Why else give incomplete information? Evade away. Most of these questions are rhetorical anyway.

Neither, remember you said it was so simple. Now prove how simple it is. The subject is Mary's linage to Adam and how she too is of the race of adam, therefore jesus christ is of the race of adam. You opened the can, now spill the beans. Your not going to change the subject The following page shows my point: http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html

Like I said, you don't know either. Even though by your own claim its so simple. Seems to me the same person who would sit there and beat his gums about how simple it is should have the answer. But typically, rather than putting up you evade. Once again your dishonesty is showing

Yah, it's so elementary not eevn you can answer it. In other words you can't answer the question so your trying to tear something down rather than build something up. I got a better idea, Why don't you see how other theologians handle it. Obviously Saint Vic didn't.

Actually, there is no truth in the PLAF version presented by Mike Please note Saint Vic's argument was that Jesus Christ was the exception because he was not of Adam and that the devil owns Adam's race. Well, as all people are relatives of both Adam and Eve, doesn't that make Mary, mother of Jesus, a member of Adam's race and therefore Jesus, a member of Adam's race? The following page illistrates what I'm saying: http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html Further, I'm still waiting for an explanation of how eating from a forbidden tree implies transfer of ownership.

You forgot, He only resorts to such extreme methods when He can't get it done any other way. As, by Mike's own admission, there's a host of religions claiming the same thing, there's no reason to use an alcoholic who regularly violates women. So some truth is neccessary for some people to believe, right? People believe in unicorns, where's the truth? People believe in Sasquatch, where's the truth? People believe the earth is flat, where's the truth?