So_crates

That's Mike's private interpretation.

You mean you rationalized. I'm always suspicious when someone has to do mental gymnastics to explain a point.

Even though Saint Vic had his own private interpretation of the bible? Witness what happened to the adultery paper. Witness Penworks book illuminating how Saint Vic used the bible to back up whatever principle he wanted to use to control the masses. No private interpretation. Yah, sure. That's why Saint Vic said,"I know there's a manuscript out there somewhere supporting this, we just haven't found it."

More's the pity. Those who don't remember the past are doomed to relive it.

And this is your go-to guy on the handling of the adultery paper? DWBH has a thread on the subject. I'll hit the high points of his research. The story about the alcoholic sets us up with how sorry we should feel for Saint Vic's alcoholism. The story about thorns in the flesh sets us up for how if we're going to accuse Saint Vic of sexual wrongdoing we better have solid proof.

At least the cartoon wasn't of two worms making love in dead Ernest.

It's easy. If you're one of those people popping off about the evils of contemporary moral values,then you should practice what you preach.

But not everyone is a minister telling others sex outside of marriage is wrong. You know the best pickup line? "Hello." Your impression is probably wrong. It's been my experience that parties of that nature don't end, they just become more excusive and secret.

But it was more than them that hid the paper, otherwise it could have been leaked.

Now why would Saint Vic want a paper on adultery and fornication? Looking for a loophole maybe.

Good points. Nate. To which I'll add: many of the people that scotched the adultery paper are still in the ministry in leadership positions. Makes you wonder what they're suppressing now.

And those are the leaders that are most likely running the ministry now. After all, they still haven't admitted responsibility, have they?

Saint Vic asked two people to research adultery or fornication? That's like Jeffery Dahmer asking someone to help him research a book on BBQ.

If you read Penwork's book, there never was research. So just what are they re-searching?

Let's visit the GSC players one more time. Snowball Pete is dressed in a cliche God outfit with long robes and a long flowing beard. The rest of the players are in a line. Midstage is a cliched representation of the pearly gates. Johnny Jumpup (dressed in tattered clothes) Why did you let me die of thirst in the desert? God: Well, you see, there are spiritual things going on you don't understand. I was delayed. Joe Blow: Look how emaciated I am. Why did you let me starve. God: I have this gentleman's agreement with the devil and I can only act in accordance with it. Maggie Muggins (in a swimsuit): Why did you leave me to drown? God: I know you need oxygen. But I have this deal and I got delayed. John Doe: According to Mike's "two doors" theory, this is how God would act. All bow stiffly and exit stage left.

But if we were following your "two doors" theory more evil in the world would mean more miracles, right?

I thought you said you were a trained scientist. You're about as much a scientist as I am a schnauzer. Several years back, someone claimed they created cold fusion in their laboratory. Other scientist tried the method and failed to get cold fusion. Now. It wasn't those other scientists responsibility to offer an alternate way to arrive at cold fusion. Proving the theory false was enough. It was the original scientist whose job it was to go back to the drawing board. I define the scarcity of miracles to people in the Way, which is what we're really talking about, as being because Saint Vic was a phony. And that has what to do with Saint Vic being a phony? Read the bible. That's how it's supposed to happen. Yah, Saint Vic was a phony. Only those two? How about SAINT VIC WAS A PHONY?

Yah, that makes sense. An all powerful God is going to limit himself because of a gentlemen's agreement he has with a lesser being, a being he knew at the time he made the agreement that would never keep the agreement. Now tell us the one with the three bears. Further, you still haven't told me how Cain's murdering Able fits into all this. From your rationalizations so far I might extract that the devil did evil, the "door" opened and God refused to pour out a blessing. Now, would God refuse to pour out a blessing?

Clear as mud.

No, they're tools for recognizing when somebody's trying to con you. Like the con you're attempting to perpetuate now. You mean like Saint Vic and PLAF? Which is what we've done with Saint Vic and PLAF. Again, Saint Vic, PLAF. I apply them to everything in my life, including what's here. Wrong again? Here is how I know truth from error: truth works. And it doesn't need a dozen excuses why it doesn't work. This is why the law of believing is error.

And what if what you're believing is wrong. Because you have no doubt you have no way of rooting out error. Doubling down on the idiotic is still being idiotic. Yawn! Same bs, different day. So again, if you have no doubt how do you recognize the error of such things as realizing "two doors" and "budget" are confusing terms and need to be clarified?

Que pasa? Your read only audience stop giving you attention so you decided to come here and stir the pot, hoping to squeeze out just a little more attention? Yes you do, or you wouldn't be using proven confusing labels 45 years later. So you're actually married to the terms, despite their confusion. You know, as a writer you should be concerned with what best gets your idea across. If the term is confusing, it goes. But you amateurs get married to terms and ideas and refuse to let them go? What you wrote in these last 26 pages makes you unworthy to carry a professional writer's pencil box. Forty-five years?! And the best you can do is come up with a confusing, half baked theory? If I had to turn in what you wrote on this subject to anybody I'd be ashamed of myself. In less than 45 years I'd have a paper so professional it put classical writers to shame.

Sure you are. Like you were ready to junk "budget" and "two doors" even though they were proven confusing? Now tell me the one with the three bears.