Rocky

Sound logic? Really?? It's not so easy to prove a negative. And I don't see where you did so.

Exactly.

Of course you must be right... because fundamentalism. That makes anyone right just because he says he is, despite paradoxes and ambiguities.

Time to Rise UP! ... oh, wait that's not it. Oh yeah, March 4th! It reminds me of someone I once knew... Then again, it's never the wrong day to Rise UP!

But then again, there's this... about Billy Graham.

Ouch! How gracious of you GS to offer to clarify like that.

It looks like you have overthought the topic. Didn't you (at least once) mention that you're aware of Occam's razor?

And as for Jesus, did he not spend time with those who hadn't heard of him, with those who didn't believe who he was, and with those who only knew vague whispers about a Messiah? Was not the Promise to Abraham, who'd never heard of Jesus? Does God not want all people to be saved? Unwise to lift Rom 10:9,10 out of context. Get a bigger vision than what TWI taught, especially about these verses. Get a bigger view of "saved" and salvation, too. And note, while you're about it, that BG [Billy Graham] didn't call people to his own cultic ministry. He referred people to local churches, places in their area, where they could be taught, mentored, guided, not by him but by people who knew the area and culture into which he was preaching. He didn't take all the glory to himself but acknowledged his fellow laborers (local churches) in their work for God. Thanks for that insight Twinky. I've thought for several years that it would be unjust for God to limit salvation/eternal life (if there really will be such a thing/experience) to only those who fulfill the requirements of Romans 10:9 and 10. Of course, I also have read those verses from Romans 2 before but don't remember having considered them from this perspective. This also sort of redeems BG in my mind, since I am torn regarding his outsized influence on American politics.

Those might be appropriate for this open forum. :)

Oh... how silly of me to read the underlying meaning.

Umm... not necessarily. It's YOUR fictive retelling (or at least interpretation) of things you want to be the history.

Mike, that's lazy conjecture, not analytical or anything approaching objective or rational.

Why are you afraid that someone might disagree with you? My answer to your hypothetical question of what God could possibly have told someone to do... is how would anyone know whether God would have done so? Put another way, you posted a good comment about civil society needing laws... why would God tell someone to plagiarize someone else's copyrighted work? Wouldn't it have made more sense for God to tell Wierwille to either ask permission or give proper credit to authors he borrowed from? That is, unless Wierwille was more interested in giving himself the glory as opposed to giving it to God.

Quite true. Carrying this idea further, Mike has not made any argument that would come close to suggesting Wierwille was obeying God by plagiarizing.

That sure sounds an awful lot like the logical fallacy, "appeal to authority."

Mike appears to be constructing an elaborate (fictive) scenario hoping to make sense of his specious claims. This construct is in the form of an argument but lacks substance. Waysider's supposition, that Wierwille's early followers may not even have known or realized VeePee had stolen the material seems more plausible to me.

Not sure Mike is still on the radio... but he's got a great voice for it and for narration.

That takes the form of an argument supposedly based on logic. However, it is based on suppositions and is not documented, at least not by you as presented.

Inevitably, it deteriorates, even IF it's agreed upon ahead of time. And for it to be valid, it would have to be agreed upon ahead of time by all parties that would be materially impacted.

Back at you, annio! :)

Might this be one reference you used?

Do you have any online citations that might help other readers here understand your methods and develop like skills? Please share.

How did you acquire your expertise at divining whether someone who posts here is "well-intentioned" or not?