Raf

An understandable mistake.

Where did PFAL say it is?

BAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

"Dodge, distract, challenge right back, but never admit an error is an error." Never let it be forgotten that THIS is how Mike deals with a challenge. These are HIS words. And he hasn't changed one bit. Talk about a standard ploy!

And it's a perfectly fair game question HERE. ;)

https://www.amazon.com/One-God-Lord-5th/dp/0983604223/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1516648508&sr=8-2&keywords="One+God+and+One+Lord"

One thing I've noticed is that a decade and more ago, Mike made it very clear that his method of communicating would be steeped in a dishonest approach that simply refused to acknowledge the possibility that he was wrong about something. Period. His methods have not changed one bit. They are fundamentally dishonest and inconsistent with a desire to engage in an honest discussion. Unfortunately, there is no GSC rule against being so utterly full of crap that flies cannot bear the stench.

Awesome thing about actual errors and contradictions: they don't give a F@#$ whether you approve or disapprove of their existence.

If PFAL were god-breathed it would conform to its own definition of God breathed, containing no errors or contradictions. It contains errors and contradictions. End of discussion.

Yup. Bigger and bigger. It's amazing, just yesterday it was little, and then, overnight it just...

LOL.Mike, you got discredited and left here embarrassed with your tail between your legs, unable to successfully rebut a single point I had made. I will not let rules be violated just because I don't like you, but I will also not permit you to lie and distort what happened here during your first attempt to promote your laughable thesis. PFAL fails your thesis on its own terms. That alone should embarrass you into silence. That it hasn't is just evidence of how shameless you are in your devotion to a degenerate, perverted xerox machine who was no more a follower of Christ in his day than I am today.

I would care less, but that would require effort.

No politics on GSC.

you've got one thread nominally in the wrong section maybe, from a certain point of view, and it's not bothering anyone. for now, no problem. k?

No one's asking for that. Right now the people posting on this thread ARE the majority of GSC, for all practical purposes. (I exaggerate, but only slightly).

For what it's worth: My first comment was directed specifically at Chockfull. The rest at everyone else (including chockfull). I do believe this thread is doctrinal. In the old days it would have been moved. But no one's complaining, so why bother? I shouldn't have brought it up. I'm happy with the thread here. It is About the Way as well, after all.

Chockfull, I'm amused by our brief interaction here, and while I think it opens up a fascinating discussion, it is one that is off-topic here. Agree? Everyone else: If you're wondering where I am in this discussion, there are multiple explanations for my relative lack of participation. First and foremost, I consider Mike's thesis factually debunked. There is nothing to discuss. He has never answered for the plain and obvious factual errors and contradictions in PFAL and the writings of VPW that discredit his thesis conclusively all by themselves. If he ever gets around to it, maybe I'll jump back in. But I see no need to revisit the endless cycle of "dodge, deflect, deny, anything other than admit an error is an error" that is his stated m.o. Honestly, why debate someone who announces upfront that he will not debate with integrity? My apologies if this sounds like a personal attack. I'm struggling to separate criticism of the person from criticism of his stated m.o. I have nothing to say about the person that would not result in a violation of GSC rules. Which brings up another reason for my relative silence: I humbly recognize that a decent portion of the GSC rules appear to have been developed to address the various ways I behaved in dealing with Mike. Lots of things I said and did would be considered blatant rule violations today. While I have not discussed this with anyone recently, and I only discussed it minimally with people years ago, I do not believe this is a coincidence. I also do not believe I am able to disguise my feelings enough to avoid rule violations if I should re-engage in the discussion. Housekeeping: I DO believe I am capable of behaving fairly as a moderator. So for no one has asked for that, and if that should happen, I'll see if any other mods are available to take action before I step in. And I will advise Mike personally if there is something I do that he would like to challenge. Somewhere in this list of why I'm not participating is the fact that my beliefs have changed between the original discussions and today. As such, it would be too easy for people to dismiss my comments because I do not believe ANYTHING can be "God-breathed," so how can I fairly judge whether VPW's writings are? (My answer: By holding VPW's writings to their own definitions of the characteristics of the "God-breathed Word." Surely it cannot be God-breathed and yet be incorrect about what God-breathed means!) All said, in the olden days these discussions were shipped to doctrinal. I am inclined to move it again. The only reason I haven't done it already is that the GSC has changed so much that this conversation may not be the nuisance in About the Way that it once was considered. Nonetheless, the question of whether a written work is "God-breathed" automatically falls into doctrinal, for the record. In any event, happy debating.

A fictional creation citing a fictional creation. The greatest trick the evil ever pulled was convincing the world the devil does exist, thus absolving them of responsibility for the evil that they do.

Change VPW to Paul and you all will be where I am today. Just saying.

The bibliography was fine. The arguments in the book were weak. Which is not to say ALL of the arguments were weak. Some were quite good. But taken as a whole, weak. The CES book was MUCH better, though it dishonestly did not cite Wierwille's book in its bibliography.

Jesus Christ is Not God did indeed have a bibliography. However, oddly, it was published separately and only available upon request. I used to have it. Some interesting resources there. As a work of scholarship, it was exceedingly weak.

The Bible is an especially helpful guide to the moral development of Western civilization. But (as we are exploring in another thread) it is not as much a source of objective morality as it is a reflection of the subjective morality of its day. It's got plenty of noble precepts that are not bound by the times in which they were written, along with some horrible stuff that is absolutely bound by its time.

Having re-read the thread, I found this worth repeating, even though it wasn't many posts ago. On another front, I did take some time to consider whether my views here were myopic (maybe that's the wrong word, but I'll explain). If it is true that I am guilty of looking at things only from a temporal perspective instead of from an eternal perspective (which is to say, God's point of view), then maybe I really am being a little too hard on Him. If God kills a man, only to grant that man eternal life, then has God wronged that man? If God orders Israelites to kill women and children (and according to scripture, he did exactly that), then grants eternal life to the children, has He really wronged the children? Is it not the case that the person who suffered the most was the soldier who had to carry out the executions? So maybe the criticism that I have failed to take the eternal perspective into account has some merit.

I remember Eric Carmen. He's the guy who had that hit in the 1980s called "Turn the Radio Up." Of course, that song is impossible to find nowadays because like a fool, he gave it the wrong NAME. He seems to think it's called "Make Me Lose Control," which is totally NOT the line everyone remembers. It would be on a list of Greatest Misnamed Songs, for songs remembered by lines rather than titles. Prime Example: "Never Gonna Dance Again," by Wham! Some a-hole in marketing called that one "Careless Whisper.'