Raf

That was Chockfull referring to my original post, with emphasis added by me. So I'm sorry if that was not clear, but in my opinion it is only unclear if you want to come in and redefine simple terms like "exist" so that people who agree the devil does not exist have to disagree because now you've turned non-existence into existence by metaphor or metonymy or Bolsheviksiosis. That's why I asked Chockfull to clarify, which he did quite adequately when he said ANY MORE THAN THAT KIND OF CLOUDS THE DISCUSSION. To which you replied by clouding the discussion. I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm trying to stop a hijacking. But I guess I'm too late for that. Like I said, when you're done, let me know.

Because the point of the thread is whether he exists as a person or not. Anything else clouds the issue. But you just go on and hijack the thread so we can all go down your redefinition rabbit hole. Let me know when you're done. I suppose parsing the word "exists" could be a way of saying I presented a false dichotomy, though it wasn't what I had in mind and it apparently wasn't what chockfull had in mind. Either way, it's not a discussion I'm interested in, but if anyone else is, have fun.

So now we're going to parse the word "exists."

Ok, sorry... the ending you remember was not part of the original broadcast.You are mistaken. It WAS added later and tacked on. The Happy Days episode aired in February 1978. Mork and Mindy premiered Sept. 1978. A little longer than "directly at the end." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Favorite_Orkan

Valid, interesting discussion. ____________________________ Politics. I'm not saying it's been crossed. But that's a mighty fine line. Proceed with caution. :)

My last word (because who cares, really? This is incorrect. Mork was a one off character for Happy Days. The plan for a series came when people reacted to the character. That's why the original Happy Days episode where he appeared was just a dream. Only later was it retconned that it really happened.

Do I understand your topic and intent correctly? Was there something you wanted to discuss?

They are both attributing personality to an entity that does not exist as an individual. Really, man, the reason I put you on ignore before is I was tired of having to stop and agree on simple terms in order for a conversation to take place. You seem far more interested in bending people to your peculiar word usage than you are in actual dialogue. I won't entertain you further until you can demonstrate that you can have a conversation without descending into babbling.

My problem is that you redefine terms and then act as though everyone needs to bend to your definition, which is not how dialogue works. There is fundamentally no difference between the devil being invented as some zeitgeist and the devil being a description over time of naturally occurring phenomena. It is really frustrating to get sidetracked by your babbling BS everytime you decide to redefine terms to invent conflict. Sheesh.

You'e babbling again.

There's a little heart at the bottom right of each post. I think you can click the heart and the "up" arrow that appears. But I don't think it shows that YOU liked it. Just that it was liked. Could have been anyone (except the person who posted it).

I didn't mean to completely ignore this thread. But I did want to treat it with a fair bit of seriousness... unfortunately, as you can probably tell by most of my posting habits lately, I haven't had a whole lot of time to devote to these discussions. Nonetheless, let's take a crack at it, approaching this topic with all seriousness (which is to say, if you were just posting it for giggles, I'm missing the point). The seriousness behind this topic is to look at two possibilities. 1. The devil does exist, and he wants people to think he doesn't. 2. The devil doesn't exist and was invented as a foil for God and a convenient scapegoat to absolve people of their responsibility/capacity for evil. [Third possibility: I have proposed a false dichotomy and you can think of a third possibility I did not consider in my effort to keep the conversation simple. Feel free to chime in]. I believe the second proposition. At the risk of opening a can of worms, I don't believe in objective good and evil. I do believe that ALL good and evil are subjective by definition. That is, we determine whether something is good or evil by placing a value judgment on it, and value judgments are subjective. This is a far cry from what people dismiss routinely as subjective morality, where everyone decides for themselves what is moral and what is not, and no one has the right to elevate his or her morality over anyone else's. If I say it's okay to rape butterflies, who are you to tell me I'm wrong? That portrayal of morality and ethics is simply a strawman concocted to dismiss the ability of man to determine right and wrong outside the interference of a deity. Evil works the same way. Evil is an adjective, not a noun, although we can use it as a noun by metonymy. But I personally believe there is a problem when we personify evil as a sentient being: Satan, Lucifer, Loki, Apep, Mara, Ahriman, Ruha Qadishta... these beings were created as foils for their respective gods (or as gods themselves in religions that were less dualistic and where gods were not "perfect"). Evil was not introduced to the world by a sentient being who was bored with good or who chose to rebel against all-powerful perfection. In my view, "Devil" was introduced into the world by sentient people who wanted to do evil but did not want to be held responsible for it. Hence, my retort to "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist" is: The greatest trick evil ever pulled was convincing the world the devil does exist.

Thank you. I didn't figure him being closed off like that, but that's his call. Lets just say Rocky summed it up neatly.

The great spinoff debate: Changing the name AND SETTING should count as a spinoff. All in the Family was about Archie's family. Archie Bunker's Place changed the premise of the show. So I would say yes, spinoff. But Little House on the Prairie became Little House: A New Beginning. It lost a main character and nuclear -- Charles Ingalls -- but literally kept everything else intact, including the other main character, Laura. It was set in the same town. True, a new family lived in the Little House, but the show was never about the house. That should not count as a spinoff (and in video and syndication, it doesn't even bother: it's still Little House on the Prairie). The second phenomenon you refer to is known as a "backdoor pilot." This establishes that the shows are "set in the same universe," but technically one is not a spinoff of the other. For example, The Incredible Hulk is not a sequel to Iron Man. And yes, Flash is not a spinoff of Arrow. But you can argue that Legends of Tomorrow is a spinoff of both Flash and Arrow, using key characters that were developed in both shows with no original intent to spin them off into their own show. So I disagree with WW on Legends. Others are not as clear cut, but I would say yes, spinoff: Mork and Mindy. Laverne and Shirley. These were one-off characters that proved popular enough to get their own shows. Anyway, interesting convo.

Oh, sorry, you said two things... hmm

Sumner Glau free post

I am confident he wouldn't mind us posting this link. https://www.facebook.com/john.lynn.986/posts/1503113213134727

Wierwille took responsibility for what was written under his name. You are dishonestly absolving him of that responsibility in an effort to dishonestly dodge, distract, challenge right back but never admit an error is an error. That is lying. You are not engaging in an honest dialogue. I am not assuming dishonesty. I am observing, noting and documenting dishonesty.

Wierwille took personal responsibility for everything in books that had his name as the author. To act as though errors in those books get a mulligan because they were collaborative efforts is fundamentally dishonest and at odds with Wierwille's own written testimony about the content of those books. They are his words. They are not "proofreaders oversights. They are actual errors. Your dishonesty would be shameful coming from a thinking person.

What is also simple is that it is a testable thesis. It actually gives you the methodology to test it. And it fails. Therefore, it is a false thesis. It takes breathtaking dishonesty to say otherwise. Ooh, look!

Dodge. Distract. Challenge right back. But never admit an error is an error. That is a fundamentally dishonest tactic unworthy of the label "Christian." Wierwille's books are god-breathed, except the ones written by committee, regardless of the fact that he himself took personal responsibility for the final product. We've reached the point, I think, where identifying you as "dishonest to the core" is not "namecalling" but a fair and objective description of your conduct on this board. You'e not an honest debater, and that makes discussion with you a profit to no one.

I don't know how someone can write such breathtakingly dishonest posts and still consider themselves Christian. Honestly, how do you do it? Is your relationship with Christ so meaningless to you that you fail to say how you assassinate his character by claiming to be his disciple? I'm not even a Christian anymore and I'm embarrassed for him at the notion that someone might mistake you for one of his followers.

Has anyone seen the goalpost? I mean, it was JUST HERE like a second ago!

Proofreaders' oversights and printers' errors? That's NONSENSE. Those were Wierwille's words. He didn't misspell "Turkey" "F-r-a-n-c-e." He wrote something that was actually in error. The dishonesty of your answer is fruit. Tells me all I need to know about the tree.

The Council of Nicea is where the church decided once and for all that Jesus is God and of one substance with the Father, begotten not made, not a creation but the Creator. It was indeed an event of epic proportions. And it is an actual error to say Nicea was in modern day France. Good catch. I missed it. [I can't verify because my copies of these books have been transformed by the renewing of their pulp into Bounty towels.