So_crates

So, God helped him pick the winners when he played the ponies... Then why ABS? Just wait until the lottery hits $250 million, then have God reveal the winning numbers.

So did he do the Lo shantra bit? So, if I accept they were real manifestations, then he operated two out of nine once. Hardly, "signs, miracles, and wonders following the man of God like a tail follows a dog." Hardly proof he was in fellowship. Can I SIT when I'm out of fellowship? Yes. Can I interpret? Yes. I think one or two people here even said they made up their interpretation beforehand just in case they were called on. We are talking about the person that once said: "The leader sets the example," right? We are talking about the person who expected me to follow his lead, right? Did Paul womanize then rationalize it as well my walk was terrible, you know how that goes. How many people do you think would have followed him? Saint Vic knew full well he was doing evil, that's why he worked so diligently to cover it up. And, when you think about it, covering it up is compounding the sin, not asking forgiveness. And the little point we were trying to make is that Saint Vic never lived up to his self-referencing. George Carlin once said: "I have as much authority as the Pope, it's just not as many people follow." Well, to paraphrase, I have as much authority as Saint Vic, it's just not as many people follow

This is along the lines of the question I keep asking: if Saint Vic was everything he claimed he was, where are those "signs, miracles, and wonders that follow the Man of God the way a tail follows a dog"?

Then you should check out Youtube's videos on narcissism. Apparently there's a whole cottage industry built around helping people deal with egomaniacs and the psychological damage they do.

See, that's where your missing the boat: if you read any of Skyrider's other threads, you'd see this is just one of many red flags. Your the one that brought up I go by the actions that follow the proclamation. Not me.

Ego is fine, as long as it doesn't injure others. Your basic error, as I'm trying to point out, somewhat eloquently, is that your thinking our whole decision is based on ego. It's not. Like you, we look at what was done AFTER the self proclaimation. You can't hold me responsible for balls you lob right over the plate.

And a lot of evil people and dystopian societies also use self referential statements. So? You then said: To which I responded, Saint Vic proclaimed he had the only true word of God, afterword he did everything he could to disgrace that proclaimation. You set the perimeters.

I'm not trying to "prove" that "self referential greatness" always indicated evil. First off always is a very big word nothing is always. I would use "more likely". Second, you said In your above statement what makes Saint Vic the exception?

No, you were saying: And I in return presented Saint Vic's proclamation and what he did afterward. And, if you want to try and take that out, what makes Saint Vic different than your examples?

You mean like proclaiming you have the only true word of God than stealing others ideas and raping women?

Why stop at Jesus, Paul, Luke, John, or Moses? How about Hitler? Or Stalin? Or Lenin? Or the Nazis? Or the Soviet Union?

Skyrider, I agree with you whole-heartedly. As a matter of fact, the more one looks at PLAF, the more they can see just how full of pre-emptive strikes it is. Even the law of believing is nothing more than a pre-emptive strike. By making this "law" a foundational principle in The Way, Saint Vic had a catch all excuse for all the evil one would encounter in the ministry. Then, of course, it was time to renew your mind.

Us forgiving one another compared to how much God forgives us.

I don't know about the context of John 10:10. However, I do know the context of the pressed down shaken together running over verse: forgiveness.

Another part of Saint Vic's scam was the more than abundant life schtick. Just what is a more than abundant life? If we go according to PLAF, "the more than abundant life" was changed to "an abundant life" in later editions. When someone inquired what an abundant life was, the answer they got was on the order of Saint Vic seperating needs and greeds. So what are needs? Food, water, air, shelter, that required to maintain life. Historically, I can see where this would be important. For most of human history, food has been scarce, finding potable water a problem, and shelter often lacking. So, at one time goals like an abundant life were vital. However, we live in a time when food, water and shelter are easily accessable. Ask anyone on welfare. They're nowhere near the problems they've been in the past. Also, we live in a society where "the abundant life" could be defined as "just getting by." According to Saint Vic's definition, one could live in a roach-, bedbug-, flea-infested hovel, be eating beans and crackers three times a day, and drinking stream water and that would be living the abundant life. Unfortunately, we are not taught to "just get by." From the time we're in swattling clothes, we have it pounded into our heads that our job is to succeed, to excel just getting by. One can see this in Saint Vic's life, too: How much did he really need to substain his life and how much was really greed? Even in examples presented in PLAF: Were those red curtains neccessary to substain the woman's life? Then why were we told we had to just get by?

Another part of Saint Vic's scam was the more than abundant life schtick. Just what is a more than abundnt life? If we go according to PLAF, "the more than abundant life" was changed to "an abundant life" in later editions. When someone inquired what an abundant life was, the answer they got was on the order of Saint Vic seperating needs and greeds. So what are needs? Food, water, air, shelter, that required to maintaain life. Historically, I can see where this would be important. For most of human history, food has been scarce, finding potable water a problem, and shelter often lacking. So, at one time goals like an abundant life were vital. However, we live in a time when food, water and shelter are easilt accessable. Ask anyone on welfare. They're nowhere near the problems they've been in the past. Also, we live in a society where "the abundant life" could be defined as "just getting by." According to Saint Vic's definition, one could live in a roach-, bedbug-, flea-infested hovel, be eating beans and crackers three times a day, and drinking stream water and that would be living the abundant life. Unfortunately, we are not taught to "just get by." From the time we're in swattling clothes, we have it pounded into our heads that our job is to succeed, to excel just getting by. One can see this in Saint Vic's life, too: How much did he really need to substain his life and how much was really greed? Even in examples presented in PLAF: Were those red curtains neccessary to substain the woman's life? Then why were we told we had to just get by?

Don't worry about it, Mike. It's not that big a deal. Of course there's a lot of hurt here. There alway will be "Comfort is in heaven "We are on earth "Here lives crosses, cares, and grief."

This is not our inability to understand, this is YOUR failure to communicate. From PLAF: "If you have five verses saying one thing and one verse saying another, you don't throw out the five in favor of the one. You see what's wrong with the one." Once again, responsibility of the communication lies with the communicator. If five people aren't getting it, that's YOUR fault, not theirs. All I see is 1000-word essays that could be much shorter. I usually wind up skimming. As I told you before, my experience tells me the wordier someone is, the more likely someone is trying to con me. Why do you think PLAF was 33 hours long? Mike said: When can you actually look at what you are criticizing? Not yet, I see. Me: Are you saying truth can't survive criticism?

No, I think your the one failing to understand. Proofreaders check spelling and grammar, they don't touch content. So, the content errors in PLAF have nothing to do with the proofreaders, yet your insisting they're proofreader errors. It's unfortunate you don't want to expend as much energy to understand as you expect us to.

So your going to skip right over your claims God lied was deceptive used trickery doesn't trust us As none of these are attributed to God, that alone invalidates your claim PLAF is God-breathe That's okay, we couldn't care less what you have to say about "all with distinction." Let me guess: more evasion, more circular logic, more promising something that really adds up to a big nothing. That's no surprise.

The other thing your implying by claiming God hid these statements and the reason thereof is that God doesn't trust us. He trusts us with his spirit, he trusts us with the greatest secret in the world, but this---no way.

We're not talking about the Mystery, are we? Did he claim the Mystery was one thing, and then made it something else? That's what we're talking about with PLAF. The bible says God is not a man, he can't lie to us. The bible also said the mystery was a secret, which mean it wasn't spoken of. So, the answer is no, he didn't decieve the devil. There was no mention of the mystery. He didn't claim it was one thing (put a false label on it) then make it another. There's a huge difference (Do you always argue with God-breathe writings? See my previous post for my two sledgehammer statements)

By hiding the statements, and listening to your reasoning for them being hiddden, I have to conclude you think God uses trickery and deception--the same tactics as the devil. You refuse to even address this issue with nothing but more circular logic. Oh, Mike, did you know my writing is God-breathe? You missed my Thus sayeth the Lord statement a page or two back: Mike, God himself could come down from heaven and tell you it was an error and you still wouldn't be convinced. I said it again, in a slightly different way, a few posts later, which establishes it I hid them because I know you like puzzles.

What was so encouraging? The only thing I got out of the whole afternoon was the usual: "Parallel isn't an error because I say it isn't an error." That's not encouraging to me. You don't think they haven't been up for discussion since you've posted them. Again, the only thing WE'RE getting out of them is the usual: "They prove PLAF is God-breathe because I say they prove PLAF is God-breathe." Are you starting to see a pattern here?