Raf

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.'

I think he would have been MORE successful, as it would have shown that he was separating the baby from the bathwater, as it were.

I think part of the point of portraying gay relationships in such a matter of fact way is to "normalize" them, to show that they are just a part of the fabric of life. This couple is a couple. So is that couple. And that one. And only one of the three is a heterosexual couple. Got a problem with that? Watch a different show! In a different context, we used to refer to it as "mainstreaming." For example, the family featured in a newspaper article about small business growth or tax credits for private school education just happens to be black or Hispanic or Asian. The article is not ABOUT the fact that they're b/h/a. They're affected by the issue. The article is about the issue. Did you see the last Rocky movie, Creed? It's a black movie. Well, not really. It's a movie. It just happens to be about black people. And Rocky. No one thinks of it as a black movie, but it is. (My prediction, by the way, is that in the Creed sequel, Rocky dies). Where was I? Oh, mainstreaming. The idea behind mainstreaming is, for example, that not every movie about a black man's struggle has to be about The Black Man's Struggle. Not every article about Latinos running small businesses and navigating the system has to be about Latinos Running Small Businesses. Not every storyline featuring gay people is about their homosexuality. It's about the story. The characters in it just happen to be gay. Or not.

Why not have a Monel-X? Why not Barry? Why not Wells? Why not just make them close friends? I get that it served the plot, but the plot would have proceeded just fine with them as close friends and allies. Would Barry do less for Killer Frost?

I will have a more complete answer later, but allow me to ask you a question. Why did you have no qualms at all about alt-Oliver and alt-Supergirl being in a romantic relationship, but you wonder whether Captain Cold being gay was necessary to the plot (you know, aside from the fact that it's the reason he and his boyfriend were on the wrong side of the Nazis)? One relationship gets away without a mention. The other is questioned. I found Sara and Alex hilarious. Sara is a conquer-her, Alex is vulnerable and on the rebound. What, you thought nothing would happen? CAMMAN!!! (say it out loud).

For what it's worth, I saw nothing snarky in Rocky's reply to the original post. Socrates, one thing is for certain from where I sit: The way you responded to Rocky makes me extremely unlikely to reply to anything you post here. Now I'm going to brace myself for a nasty comeback, but boy would I be pleasantly surprised if you prove me wrong.

Outstanding

Gaston was from Ladyhawke

Yes.

Minutes from finishing.

Incorrect. Anyone else have a guess? Anyone? Anyone?

Regarding Doctrinal:

Regarding "Questioning Faith"

Roles played by _____ Eugene Morris Jerome Michael McPhee Gaston (not THAT Gaston) Clark Kellogg Niko Tatopoulos

Tony Shaloub

Does he know how to get to the airport? Does he even understand colors?