Rocky

bump

It's not proof. It's argument. Btw, your argument that all people are dead inside is one paradigm. I believed it 30 - 40 years ago... because Wierwille said that's what the bible meant. I no longer believe that to be the case. I read too much to still accept that paradigm. There are MANY references online to explore that issue. Here's one that I found. I didn't prove anything, but I did present an argument to support what I said I believe... (or don't believe) The significance of this paradigm, as I see it, is that the Wierwille fundamentalist (extremist) mindset is the basis for abusing children and spouses. I regret having bought into that paradigm for far too long. Yes, regrets... I have a few. (I think there's a song about that) I can also say that I'm thankful my daughter (and son-in-law) know(s) better than I did when she was the age my grandchildren are now.

Sorry... not relevant. If you don't want to do the work then don't clamor about what some nebulous other group might say that agrees with you. Invoking the word, "proofs" is again disingenuous and evasive... not only that but in this case, misdirection. Nobody asked you for or demanded proofs. ALL things that you suggest those with whom you discuss/debate go look for what would amount to spelling out your argument, are your responsibility. Think back several weeks to when I told you I believe you are toying with people here. You're doing it again.

Disingenuous and evasive. No, it's not funny; no, what's happening is you pretend to make an argument but don't really make any such argument.

Disingenuous and evasive. If you've got an argument to make about what other Christian denominations say about the issue, make the argument.

This, of course, IS (for the most part) true. I would recommend (and have done so on GSC before) people read The Confidence Game.

"I like learning," in this statement IS evasion. The context is discussion, debate. If you really did like to learn, learn about how to productively conduct yourself in discussions and debates. Your understood expectation is to try to get people to see your side of things. You're not getting the job done. You consistently put more energy and effort into avoiding getting the job done... at least as it pertains to what you post at GSC.

Really? The hydrogen atom is tangible and inherent (and profound) in life as we know it. Declaring it to be trivial is a gross misstatement of biological and chemical reality. Perhaps this is a tangent, but to cite the hydrogen atom as trivial seems to display a profound lack of understanding of the world (and life) around you.

I fail to see how that is relevant to anything.

Verses you did NOT spell out. In presenting (alleged) arguments like that, it's YOUR job to provide links/quotes to claimed "official lines of some large churches." Otherwise, you're just handily being evasive.

I didn't get that from Twinky's post. You seem perfectly capable of ignoring what you don't want to respond to. You do it regularly. No sense blaming it on others.

Why would the thread need to be locked? Just because you can't stay focused on the original intent?

Please don't insult our intelligence. Spell it out. Which verses "line up very nicely" with what? First off, does the bible EVER specifically indicate that Jesus never even told a "white lie?" Or is it blasphemous for me to even raise the question?

I recognize your point in the highlighted text, but just want to point out that Demographic Geography shows that today those two are not mutually exclusive.

And YOUR point taken too. Thank you.

Not a problem. It's always okay to ask for clarification.

Do you have some early Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic text that rightfully translates it that way or are you just deciding that's how it must be according to your private interpretation of PFLAP?

Occam's razor would suggest that regardless of whether JC ever lied, "All people are liars" retains it's veracity. It's a generalization that is accurate. IF JC never lied, it could rightfully be said that he would be the exception that proves the rule. Further, I think Mike's Gobbledygook is just a lame attempt to translate his PFLAP belief into something that addresses the questions of modern Christians. I don't buy it.

It just occurred to me that the organization's practices with regard to doing good things for people in need stands in violation/contrast to its proclaimed belief in "giving = receiving." If the organization truly believed that axiom, perhaps over the last several decades it wouldn't have been quite so tightfisted about helping the unfortunate.

Well... not yet understood by whom? You take shortcuts, make assumptions and suppositions without testing the validity thereof, (almost certainly) overestimate your own capabilities/skills, all of which adds up to making invalid generalizations that disrespect those with whom you are engaged in discussion.

Thanks for asking for clarification. Again, nobody (well, me that is) was asking or suggesting you should stop telling the truth about them. However, you rightly don't have to let them have control over your life. Obviously, that process can take time to make the changes in one's brain.

Mike, oh Mike. You have written and described several self-limiting utterances. That you keep saying things like, "You really do look miserable with the Pure Evil model," isn't critical thinking, it's a declaration of the walls you construct to keep yourself locked into your favored world view. That's apparently more of a projection on your part than anything else. It's about you, not about those with whom you pretend to converse.

And my feeling and assessment is that the minute I stop being alarmed and indignant about TWI's corporate governance and all it entails is the minute I stop letting them have any control over my life. I no longer need to accept that corporate governance as somehow necessary in my life.

It sure doesn't look like you tried any such thing. When you say "I thought my words highlighted and others were enough if she had ears to hear," you're not trying to talk to her as a person. You're talking AT her as a thing. But you also clearly communicated that you put up your defensive wall when you perceived her writing in her lawyer voice. Well Mike, we come back to EQ. Whether or not you're right (who am I to say), that YOU act like you're right (even if you are right) is not emotionally intelligent. You would do well to figure out that there are more effective ways to make your arguments AND to bring people around to seeing things (whether or not they end up agreeing with you) your way than by telling them that they are wrong and you are right.