Raf

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.

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.